Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Seabhcan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Seabhcan

final (22/2/5) ending 13:14 June 3, 2005 (UTC) 48 hour extension by Cecropia re insufficient vote

Hello! I've been a Wikipedian since late 2003, and have 2642 edits under my belt. I'm number 831 on this activity list I never before wanted to sieze the vast powers of Adminship, but I've grown used to them over on wikicities. I'm active on Irish and Russian issues (see Wikipedia:Irish Wikipedians' notice board and Wikipedia:Russian wikipedians' notice board) and I think we need a few more admins over there.Seabhcán 13:14, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. I've seen Seabhcan at work on numerous occasions, and I never noticed anything that would make him unworthy of adminship. Support.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 02:22, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
2. Seabhcan has been an excellent and worthy contributor to Irish articles & has been great to work with. Support - Pete C ^✍ 17:15, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
3. Support From what I've seen, he's been an active contributor and pretty much controversy free - ℬastique▼^talk 17:18, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
4. Cool. JuntungWu 13:37, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
5. Support. Keeps his nose clean, and has been around for ages so we know he's trustworthy. Even if he can't think of specific admin tasks he'd tackle right now (question A), I see no reason not to give him the tools even if they're only used on an ad-hoc basis. -Lommer | ^talk 22:54, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
6. Support. A great editor who deserves the no big deal title of admin for his work on Irish matters alone. The humour apparent in his responses to the generic questions reflects his ability to deal with stress well. Filiocht | Blarneyman 08:07, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
7. Support.--File Éireann 13:25, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
8. Support. Adminship should be no big deal. Even if he rarely uses admin powers, it wouldn't hurt for him to have them. It's not as though they're rationed. Joyous 03:39, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
9. Support. I don't see why not. Nadavspi | talk 04:03, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
10. Weak support. I'd be more enthusiastic about this adminship if Seabhcan was, but he seems solid enough.-gadfium 04:13, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
11. Support. Level-headed user, doesn't stir up controversy, useful contributions on Irish topics. David | Talk 08:58, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
12. Support. —Xezbeth 10:25, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
13. Support. gkhan 12:27, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
14. Support. A review of some edits, user page, and talk page all look good. Seems like someone who works well with others. Should be no big deal in this case. Jonathunder 15:50, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
15. Support. Far less qualified candidates on this page are getting twice as much support. I can't find a good reason not to support this candidate. Gamaliel 15:55, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
16. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 18:06, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
17. Support. No big deal. --Kbdank71 19:53, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
18. Support. He seems quite qualified for adminship. Jacob1207 20:24, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
19. Support. Actions speak louder than words. His actions speak of admin-worthy material. Bratsche^{talk random} 03:21, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
20. Support. I don't know Seabhcan, but an apparent good record and a lack of problematic edits would lead me to think he/she could certainly be trusted with adminship. - Taxman ^Talk 14:29, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
21. Support--Duk 16:06, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
22. Support. He/She is a good editor, and deserves my support. --Lst27 (talk) 20:00, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak oppose. A long-time contributor with many edits, with a pretty clean history (going by user talk history). However, lack of activity in the Wikipedia namespace and non-answer reply to question 1 suggest a lack of interest in admin duties. — Gwalla | Talk 05:34, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
2. Weak oppose. I agree with Gwalla's comments, and feel that while you fulfil the requirements experience-wise for adminship. However, users should not become admins just because they feel they've gotten to a stage where they need to be seen as a sysop. If you want to be an admin, convince us! Harro5 06:51, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Currently, your comments and your answers below do not quite convincingly explain to me why you should be promoted now and how you would help Wikipedia using the admin tools. Please elaborate more. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:09, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
2. Weak Neutral. Can you answer question 1 a little bit more thoroughly? I can't give you an honest answer if I don't know why you want admin powers. Linuxbeak | Desk 03:09, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
3. Neutral. A, to be honest, ridiculous answer to question 1 needs to be fixed before I can decide. Hedley 22:00, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
4. Neutral, the replies to the standard answers seem to imply some lack of motivation. I think it's also appropriate to read up on what admin powers are before applying for them. (They don't have anything to do with slapping on delete templates, for instance.) Politeness is important for admins, IMO—well, let's say striving for politeness is, at least—and it's not polite to the community to reply nonchalantly. Bishonen | talk 11:12, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
5. Neutral Although his contributions show his work is strong, they also show reduced activity outside of the article space. Combined with minimal answers to the "generic questions", this makes me wonder what the candidate will do of his adminship. Phils 20:17, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• Would appreciate a fuller answer (to say the least) on "generic question 1", especially given that this is a self-nom, and is to be presumed to want said admin powers to do something with them. Alai 22:50, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

  Based on your activity in the past three months, I do not see how you would currently benefit using the admin tools. You do not actively participate in VFD, RC patrol, reverting vandals, and other janitorial tasks. Also, you seem to mark most of those edits as minor with no edit summaries. Again, I fail to see how being promoted would benefit you and Wikipedia. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:40, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

  Lately I've been spending a lot of time reorganising categories - Category:Currency in particular. But I count about 20 vandalism revertions in the past month or so. Seabhcán 14:40, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Twenty vandalism revertions in the past month or so is a relatively low number for an admin candidate. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:43, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

A. I've always been a very tidy wikipedia, my mum taught me well.

(Sorry for late reply - I was away for the weekend) - I have been active on the "In the news" and "did you know" sections and would be happy to help maintain these. I tend to revert vandalism when I meet it, rather than seeking it out. I sometimes check out the "newpages" and slap a "delete" template on obvious nonsense.

(Re some comments) I admit I will never edit as frequently as some users, but I will edit wisely and daily. However, I don't have an infinite amount of time to spend on wikipedia. Do I *need* admin powers? No, I don't need them, it would just be useful. Am I, as Harro5 suggests, applying for adminship for 'status' reasons? No, that would be silly - I don't need 'wiki-status' for self fulfilment. I want adminship simply because those slightly-extra powers would be useful for my work on wiki. If I'm rejected I'll keep contributing as before. If I am accepted I'll contribute slightly more efficiently. Its your choice.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A. History of Limerick City! Info is hard to come by and it took a few months of reading to get this one right.

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 will deal with it in the future?

A. A few times, but no big fights. I don't get wiki-stress, I have my real life for that sort of thing.