Agathoclea (talk | contribs) pro |
→Neutral: the way I see it |
||
Line 111: | Line 111: | ||
#'''Weak Neutral''' That's the first time I've ever seen that phrase, but it fits: The candidate is certainly a good one, so if I found something seriously wrong, I woudn't oppose, I just wouldn't vote at all (or would have a ''Strong Neutral''). His answer to Q6 (block vs. ban) isn't what I was looking for; the cat usage was less than stellar (although it would have been just as bad if he had used a person beating up another person). <font face="terminal">[[User:Flaming|flaming]][[User talk:Flaming|lawyer]]</font> 04:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC) |
#'''Weak Neutral''' That's the first time I've ever seen that phrase, but it fits: The candidate is certainly a good one, so if I found something seriously wrong, I woudn't oppose, I just wouldn't vote at all (or would have a ''Strong Neutral''). His answer to Q6 (block vs. ban) isn't what I was looking for; the cat usage was less than stellar (although it would have been just as bad if he had used a person beating up another person). <font face="terminal">[[User:Flaming|flaming]][[User talk:Flaming|lawyer]]</font> 04:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC) |
||
#:What is wrong with his answer to Q6? Seems fine to me. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>— [[User:Neurolysis|<font color="#5A3696">neuro</font>]]</b><sup><i>[[User talk:Neurolysis|<font color="#5A3696">(talk)</font>]]</i></sup></font> 07:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC) |
#:What is wrong with his answer to Q6? Seems fine to me. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>— [[User:Neurolysis|<font color="#5A3696">neuro</font>]]</b><sup><i>[[User talk:Neurolysis|<font color="#5A3696">(talk)</font>]]</i></sup></font> 07:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC) |
||
#::Well to me (although I didn't consider it enough of an issue to change my support) it reads as if you do bad things, block. If you do worse things, ban. In practice that isn't strictly true, and the key difference between a ban and a block (one is community based and permanent unless consensus changes, one is based on one particular admin) wasn't really brought up. Personally I would have said that blocking is when you kill a cat and a judge sends you away for a few years, banning is when you kill 15 cats, burn down a cat home and say mean things about Garfield and a jury sends you away for life (with the remote possibility of parole). Still probably not very good, but I am working within cat-related limits here. [[User:Ironholds|Ironholds]] ([[User talk:Ironholds|talk]]) 11:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 11:33, 12 February 2009
S@bre
Nomination
(talk page) (33/1/1); Scheduled to end 19:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
S@bre (talk · contribs) – It is with great pride that I nominate Sabre for adminship. This here limey joined the land of lost wiki souls back in the waning weeks of 2005 and is a user who is here to edit, not cause drama. Most active in the realm of video games, he has two FAs and a Featured Topic nomination to his name, with a few more bronze stars in the works. He is active on WT:VG and is always available to provide input or advice. He knows his policies and has been instrumental in turning steaming piles of video game cruft of unknown notability into articles the 'pedia can be proud of, and is willing to dig in to even difficult projects (like mine). While he has less "admin-type activity" than many candidates who pass through these gates, he has the knowledge, the skills, and the temperament to deal with even the most troublesome users fairly and calmly. In my many months of knowing him I have never seen him the least bit ruffled; a stiff upper lip and all that :) Most tellingly, he wouldn't nominate himself for the admin bit. Without further ado, bring in the accused! --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: As requested by Gary King, I'm accepting this nomination with an "argh matey!" -- Sabre (talk) 20:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
- A: I'd consider myself an admin "on call", I'd try to respond to areas where people are in need of a neutral third opinion that may require administrative action; I would go where needed. With WP:VG and the odd unrelated articles I occasionally stumble upon, I like to try to inject an opinion where I feel I can add something valuable. As an admin, I would imagine this would extend to responses to issues at WP:AN/I and WP:AN. As someone who seems to run into the need to move articles on occasion during clean-ups and rewrites, I'd like to assist at WP:RM, which I notice is in need of administrators to help. I would also get involved with the WP:AFD process, particularly involving newer articles that are subject to an AfD. -- Sabre (talk) 20:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: This tends to differ. I consider myself an article writer first and foremost, I count my rewrites and large scale cleanups as my best contributions, but I could not honestly name an article that I feel consistently represents my best; this is because I find the whole thing a learning process, usually I feel the results of each article I cleanup or rewrite are better than the last one I dealt with. At the moment, I'm on a slight high after uploading a complete rewrite of Steve Purcell just yesterday, even though I know the prose can be improved (I don't consider myself a good copyeditor) and the sources strengthened. Although there are traditionalist elements on Wikipedia who may think that the articles I've improved aren't "proper" encyclopedic subjects when compared to things like history or science, I'm still proud of my GA and FA accomplishments as many of them articles that were previously rather underdeveloped and in need of a helping hand to get going. -- Sabre (talk) 20:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
- A: I haven't really come into any conflicts in recent memory, although I recall a couple of instances when the "stiff upper lip" had quivered and caused me to get somewhat stressed. There have been one or two occasions of unwarranted outbursts when something gets pushed too far with me, but I've generally attempted to rectify situations with the users concerned on a one-to-one basis away from article content. This hasn't happened in quite a while though. I have come into conflict with users who could be classified as deletionists and inclusionists. In my early days on Wikipedia, writing articles on StarCraft fiction, I came into conflict with deletionists due to my writing style not meeting up to WP:N or WP:WAF standards which on occasion dissolved into a shouting match. I eventually began to get to grips with guidelines and consulted with Deckiller, who was writing a new version of WP:FICT at the time, to properly rectify the user's concerns with the articles. I like to think my efforts were successful.
- Sometime ago, I imagine around a year ago, I had a brief stint with AfD as my main form of contribution, where I came into conflict with inclusionists with whom I disagreed. After realising that continuing some discussions would simply degrade into unneeded arguments, I disengaged from consistent AfD participation. Now, I focus far more on writing but I still monitor AfDs and inject opinions on occasion when I feel I can properly add something to the discussion; I consider myself to hold a mostly moderate position between the two viewpoints of inclusionist and deletionist. -- Sabre (talk) 20:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Optional question from Hipocrite
- 4. Have you been involved in a long running dispute as a neutral third party? How did you address it? If not, could you please pick a current long running dispute and discuss how you might help address it?
- A: This is not be the kind of dispute that would require administrative action, but the most recent dispute that would fall into the category of "long running" was a slightly heated discussion over at Talk:Command & Conquer, which had been running since November 08. I responded to a request at WT:VG for outside comments in a content organisation dispute involving the factions of the Command & Conquer franchise, which had become stalemated between those who wanted to delete, those who wanted to merge, and those who wanted to keep.
- I tried to assist the direction of the conversation by suggesting that those who want to keep those articles clean them up to present the fiction as coherently as possible under WP:WAF, while sources attesting to individual notability were searched for. That way, if the sources could be found, the articles could be easily enhanced with these sources, and perhaps be ready for an upgrade in rating. If not, then the articles could be merged as "mini-articles" into a general faction list/article. If merged done properly, there would still be significant information on the factions, within the notability of the general concept of C&C factions, which could be attested to. The articles would also be instantly ready to spin-out again should sources for the notability of individual characters were made available later.
- This was meant to compromise between removing the material and this interpretation that merging equates to deletion. I based this off of the approach I adopted for the corresponding StarCraft article, which is structured as though it was three mini-articles that can be quickly spun-out again should the sources become available in the future. -- Sabre (talk) 21:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Optional question from Malleus Fatuorum
- 5. Could you outline your view on the civility policy and its uneven application across the project?
- A: The civility policy to me is simple. Treat others as you would have them treat you. This covers most areas of the civility policy: assume people are trying to help the project (however misguided one may think others can be in some cases) unless the evidence blatantly suggests the opposite, don't turn the place into a battleground (disengage if there is the risk of doing so), remain polite, try not to raise to bait or lower yourself to someone else's level when you are targeted with incivility yourself. To me, there should not be uneven application of the policy, the idea of treating people with respect isn't one that should be compromised on; treat them with dignity even when you disagree with them. There will be occasions when an editor may just snap after being pushed a little far (I've been there), but this is usually excusable if regret or an apology is presented later. Editors who routinely breach basic civility should be warned, and if consistently persistent, blocked and ultimately pernamently banned. -- Sabre (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'd say admins who block for incivility whilst being incivil themselves in the same case or elsewhere probably should have their adminship reviewed. Personally, I'd try approaching them one-to-one first, requesting that they act more in accordance with the responsibility of their position. If that fails to rectify the situation, then perhaps a user RfC and in irredeemable of cases, the opening of an RFDA to remove them. I hope that helps better answer the question. -- Sabre (talk) 00:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- It perhaps answers the question, but it doesn't address the problem. Would you support the gargantuan effort necessary to desysop a fellow admin who had been demonstrated to be guilty of the same offence that he had blocked another editor for or not? Or would you close ranks and protect your own? --Malleus Fatuorum 00:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- 6. In your own words, what's the difference between a block and a ban? Also, include a real-life analogy between the two. It must involve a cat.
- A. Both are preventative measures to prevent damage to Wikipedia, although one is more serious than the other. Blocks are put into place to as a deterrant against detrimental behaviour to the project done by a user (ie vandalism, incivility) after other methods of dissuasion has been tried, while bans are there as a last ditch method of removing persistently disruptive editors who have shown no interest in changing their ways. I'd use the analogy of the police, with the extremely poor inclusion of a cat. If someone beats up a cat, they may be warned and briefly detained by the police—the block. If they then attempt to kill the cat, they are arrested and prosecuted—the ban. -- Sabre (talk) 00:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
General comments
- Links for S@bre: S@bre (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/S@bre before commenting.
Discussion
- Oh wow, Q6 and the answer are one of the best I've ever seen on RfA, and I've read every one for the past three years. Good work. Keegantalk 06:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Support
- Support No problems, certaintly not going to delete the main page, and should be a net positive, support.--Giants27 TC 20:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Per Giants27 and even if he deletes the main page it will provide some relief from the deadly tedium around here. Hm. Which way is the main page?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- + Keegantalk 20:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- Abso-sixeffsees-lutely. GARDEN 20:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support. (edit conflict) From what I've seen, he knows policy and procedures well enough. A sample of his AFD contributions looked good. Does article work. Civil and clueful. It's a green light from me. Useight (talk) 20:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- Strong support. Wizardman 21:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- Great with video game articles, good AFD work. Seen him everywhere, but no interactions, so this is kind of a moral support... lol. Ceran→//forge 21:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support. Had a good rummage through his contributions and found absolutely nothing worth complaining about and a lot to recommend him. Looks like a really excellent contributor who would wield admin tools effectively. ~ mazca t|c 21:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- Excellent candidate. While he may not have the usual requisite experience in admin issues, he has enough common sense/CLUE to know what to do. Also, feel like making a userpage for me? NuclearWarfare (Talk) 21:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support A calm editor who has done lots of good work (in the video game area). A good role model. – sgeureka t•c 21:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- Well on the way to the 100 club support per the above. He is quite simply an editor who gets stuff done and keeps it cool. --Izno (talk) 21:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- In 2008, the better candidates got fewer supports than the others, because people are more likely to show up when it's a close vote. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 00:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Will be a great administrator. LittleMountain5 21:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Will be an asset to the community. Good AFD work. Wisdom89 (T / C) 21:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support - SimonKSK 21:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- Did not describe entering a dispute as a "neutral third party." But at least he's willing to take a position, so tentative support.Hipocrite (talk) 21:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support Been here a while, lots of good contributions, a bit light on edit summary usage. Good nomination support. Admin tools will benefit project. --NrDg 22:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support. bibliomaniac15 22:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support - ARGH MATEY — neuro(talk) 22:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- I recognize his name from somewhere, and didn't have a "bad gut feeling". There isn't any real reason to oppose. Master&Expert (Talk) 22:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support; no reason to oppose, and excellent answers to the questions. I don't agree with his answer to the civility question, since we have different standards of how we'd like people to treat us (some want people to be nice, some want people to tie them down, pour hot wax on their chests and beat them with rulers) but that is a problem of opinion, not judgement. I'm a member of the first group, myself. Ironholds (talk) 22:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support – cool head, excellent content contributions, has clue. Net positive. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 22:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- I think I clicked on him some time ago and I didn't warn him, so I guess I was impressed. Contribs look good, answers too and no warning signs flash, so Support from me. Oh and he does like Sam & Max judging by his recent contribs, which demonstrates very good taste indeed. In that spirit: <I would add some Sam & Max quote here but they are all too funny to select a single one
>. SoWhy 23:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 23:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support - I've worked with S@bre on a handful of articles (most notably The Orange Box and I've always been impressed by his natural ability to work well with others both in WP:VG and elsewhere. I'm confident that he'll be careful and thoughtful in any actions he may take as an admin, just as he's been careful and thoughtful in the work I've carried out with him. The only dissapointment I have from this entire nomination is that he didn't contact me first, as I'd have offered to co-nom him! Many thanks, Gazimoff 23:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- Don't feel bad Gazi, I kinda' jumped this on him :P --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thought-you-were-already-an-admin Support Wow, I did not see this rfa coming, as I always assumed you had adminship. Goes to show you how much attention I've been paying to the wiki lately. At any rate, good luck! :) TomStar810 (Talk) 23:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- Here comes a WP:100 supports support (sorry a bit random...) per my RfA Criteria and your contribs... I thought you were already an admin...! K50 Dude R♥CKS! 00:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support. I'm trusting on the basis of the candidate's answer to my Q #5. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- — R2 01:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support No problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 01:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support: Good editor, knows what he's doing. No problems here. Chamal talk 02:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support per my RFA criteria - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 03:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Of course - I see nothing wrong. Xclamation point 05:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 06:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Support per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weapons and equipment of the Tau Empire (Warhammer 40,000), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Gex enemies and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devouring One. Seems to have a good handle on notability criteria, and no evidence that they would abuse the tools. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC).
- Support per User:A Nobody -- Agathoclea (talk) 11:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Oppose
- Weak oppose. I have had a positive interaction with the candidate at User_talk:A_Nobody/Archive_2#Request and I am pleased that the candidate has some barnstars and has never been blocked. I would also support per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kamino (reasonable attempt to get back on track), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knights Templar and popular culture (2nd nomination) (reasonable argument), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Troy Blacklaws (reasonable argument). But I would argue neutral per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arathi (semi-reasonable argument, but use of “cruft” is frowned on), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Mesa Research Facility (redirect somewhat okay), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blood Ravens (again somewhat okay), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Characters in Call of Duty (final stance was “neutral”, so…), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of units in the Age of Mythology series (reasonable argument); Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stilwater (reasonable middle ground), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Forest Rocket Facility (reasonable middle ground). Nevertheless, I compelled to oppose per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brawl Characters' Final Smashes (at worst, should have been a redirect), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devouring One (essentially a WP:JNN), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyokugenryu Karate (no real reason why not to redirect as seems to have happened anyway), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of F.E.A.R. Mods (supporting an article means supporting a rewrite, not to bold face delete), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Gex enemies (calling it non-notable is not accurate; no reason not to redirect/merge), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of units in the Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War series (no reason not merge and redirect), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morretti SR4 (if redirect is okay, then just go with that), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rules of Acquisition (2nd nomination) (a bit confrontational), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weapons and equipment of the Tau Empire (Warhammer 40,000) (don’t see why what’s good for others wikis isn’t good for us, we are also specialized encyclopedias after all and sort of the master wiki), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weapons of SOCOM: U.S. Navy SEALs Combined Assault (if mention is okay in the main article, then merge and redirect at worst), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wraith Squadron (confrontational a bit), Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Fancruft (second nomination) (if redirecting some of the above cited article is somehow not appropriate then deleting a nonsensical non-article redirect is also inappropriate), and Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2008_April_25#Wikipedia:GAMECRUFT_.E2.86.92_Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games.2FArticle_guidelines.23Scope_of_information (no value whatsoever to keeping anything with “cruft” in it around; how that word is defended more than articles is baffling). The opposes are more numerous than the reasons to be neutral or to support and they essentially concern potential bias in closing discussions and as the candidate says he is interested in AfDs, it is especially relevant here. Thus, candidate does not sufficiently meet User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards; however, because there are some saving graces, I will make this stance a “weak oppose.” If there’s a reassurance that AfDs for which the candidate may have bias are avoided or that are on the fence are “no consensus”, then I will reconsider. My concern here stems from closes like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rubber-Band Man (Static Shock) that somehow resulted in delete with no explanation despite considerably more arguments to keep, or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sennon (pretty much everyone was okay with a redirect, but somehow closed as “delete”?!), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schutzwald (how could that not have been “redirect”; no explanation), etc. Now I have no idea if Sabre would do the same thing and the only thing we have to go on is looking at how he argued in AfDs. As such, I see a bit too much of a tendency towards deletion when a redirect would at least be reasonable and in order for me, as an article rescuer, to be okay with him closing AfDs would be if we are reassured that this bias will not influence closes and/or that ones where he might have any bias will be passed over. Hopefully, if this passes, my concerns will not appear and such experiences as the one on my user page cited above will be more the norm. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 01:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Based on the fact that you are apparently opposing based on a misunderstanding of AfD policies and AfD closures you disagree with but the candidate did not participate in, I wish you would reconsider. --01:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- So you are opposing based on 1) a difference of opinion rather than a question of his judgement and 2)concerns about closes for AfDs he didn't close. I think this is likely to be taken as a "bureaucrat, please ignore this oppose" rather than a "weak oppose". Ironholds (talk) 02:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Difference of opinion means a difference in judgment, i.e. I am not confident with the candidate's understanding of inclusion criteria and thus how he judges article inclusion standards. I am opposing per the several examples of above of AfDs in which he did participate and which give me pause. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 02:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Guys, A Nobody does this all the time. He lists a ton of AfDs in which the candidate goes against his off-the-wall inclusion philosophy. He's not going to change his !vote, so let a bureaucrat give it appropriate weight or lack thereof. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 04:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Difference of opinion means a difference in judgment, i.e. I am not confident with the candidate's understanding of inclusion criteria and thus how he judges article inclusion standards. I am opposing per the several examples of above of AfDs in which he did participate and which give me pause. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 02:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- So you are opposing based on 1) a difference of opinion rather than a question of his judgement and 2)concerns about closes for AfDs he didn't close. I think this is likely to be taken as a "bureaucrat, please ignore this oppose" rather than a "weak oppose". Ironholds (talk) 02:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Based on the fact that you are apparently opposing based on a misunderstanding of AfD policies and AfD closures you disagree with but the candidate did not participate in, I wish you would reconsider. --01:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Neutral
- Weak Neutral That's the first time I've ever seen that phrase, but it fits: The candidate is certainly a good one, so if I found something seriously wrong, I woudn't oppose, I just wouldn't vote at all (or would have a Strong Neutral). His answer to Q6 (block vs. ban) isn't what I was looking for; the cat usage was less than stellar (although it would have been just as bad if he had used a person beating up another person). flaminglawyer 04:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- What is wrong with his answer to Q6? Seems fine to me. — neuro(talk) 07:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Well to me (although I didn't consider it enough of an issue to change my support) it reads as if you do bad things, block. If you do worse things, ban. In practice that isn't strictly true, and the key difference between a ban and a block (one is community based and permanent unless consensus changes, one is based on one particular admin) wasn't really brought up. Personally I would have said that blocking is when you kill a cat and a judge sends you away for a few years, banning is when you kill 15 cats, burn down a cat home and say mean things about Garfield and a jury sends you away for life (with the remote possibility of parole). Still probably not very good, but I am working within cat-related limits here. Ironholds (talk) 11:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- What is wrong with his answer to Q6? Seems fine to me. — neuro(talk) 07:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)