Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SB Johnny

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

[edit] SB Johnny

Final (16/25/5) Ended Sat, 11 Nov 2006 19:16:47 (UTC)

SB_Johnny (talk · contribs) – This is a self nomination. I am an administrator on en.wikibooks an en.wikiversity, and would consider myself to be in very good standing as a wikipedian. --SB_Johnny|talk|books 18:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Co-Nomination by Doc Tropics - Don't let SB Johnny's modest and self-effacing manner fool you. This long-time contributor is extremely dedicated to the project and active in a number of areas ranging from significant content contributions to Anti-Vandal activities. He is knowledgable about a wide range of wiki-topics and participates in discussions at The Pump. As a mature, hard-working editor whose primary interest is building a better encyclopedia, he can certainly be trusted with the mop and bucket. Given the tools, I have absolutely no doubt he will use them well. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 20:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: (self-nominating)


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 do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: To be honest, I'm not going to be one of the most active of admins on wikipedia. I'm pretty busy on wikibooks, which is even more understaffed than wikipedia is. This is more about asking for the tools because I know how to use them properly, and it makes more sense to just have them at my disposal rather than asking other admins to do things for me... the more admins the better, because adminning should at its best be a "side job", the real (volunteer) job is helping to create a good encyclopedia.
To be more specific: here's the tools I want to use, and why I want to use them:
  • Rollback: it's nice to have the button.
  • Block: when appropriate, and without apology. I only block blatant vandals (e.g., the ones who think it's really clever to replace every instance of "Mother Theresa" with "Nazi Whore". I won't be blocking anyone else, because the "blocking rules" on wikipedia are a bit too bureaucratic for me to bother with.
  • Undelete: Wikibooks recently had Special:Import enabled from wikipedia, and I'd like to undelete, import, and then re-delete some articles that were copy-paste moved in the past. I'm a pretty serious GFDL hawk, and things like that are important to me (which may be a sign of mental health issues, but I'd feel a lot better if I could fix those!) I'm also the most active admin as far as importing goes on wikibooks, so being able to undelete would be handy if an article gets deleted before an import can be performed.
  • Protect: I'd certainly be amenable to hanging out on the requests for protection page... there's a lot of articles that are quite good ("finished", in a way) that would be appropriate for the autoconfirmed level of protection. ← stricken because this seems to make people nervous... see under the first oppose vote for details.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: To be honest, nothing really comes to mind. Most of my wikipedia contributions have been copyediting, vandal/spam patrolling, and chatting about policy. My areas of expertise are decidedly in the "how-to" realm, so my pride-and-joy contribs are on wikibooks.
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: Well, I got into some huffiness with User:Brya several months ago, but we're semi-/pseudo-friendly now. I argue with User:MPF on a regular basis, but it's always been friendly (and I'm fairly sure that we will continue to argue until the end of our wikilives, and I'm also fairly sure that it will always be friendly)

Optional question from Wolf530 (talk · contribs)

1. Will you commit yourself to Administrators open to recall, and abide by the recall petition, in the event such a petition is brought forward? --Wolf530 (talk) 07:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes. All admins should be open to recall. Just as giving someone the tools should be "no big deal", taking them away should be no big deal either. I don't think having "re-eletcions" is particularly productive as a matter of course, but if an admin is seen to be overstpping boundaries, then yes, a second sit down with the community is a good way to go. (Sorry, didn't notice the new question here... actually, the last version I saw of that policy looked rather different, but that was a while ago). --SB_Johnny|talk|books 18:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
General comments
  • See SB_Johnny's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
  • I think that more or less says it all. I suppose I should disclose that part of why I want them is that it's a bit disconcerting not to have tools like rollback (most of my time on wikipedia these days is watching over my watchlist, and occaisionally I have a "where's the rollback?" moment). I'm a good admin.
  • I'm also a bit embasrrassed because I seem to be having problems with this template!
  • Since it seems to be a major issue, here's my protection log on wikibooks. (OK, that looks a little wierd... keep in mind that I'm also an administrator on en.wikiversity... there's a logic behind the wikiversity protections and unprotections).

Discussion

  • Comment - SB Johnny has a a very clear understanding of policy. What's being questioned in the "oppose" comments is his interpretation of policy. In fairness to him, I'd like to point out that these policy issues are currently a matter of wide debate at the Pump and a number of other pages. Many editors and admins support these interpretations, and/or agree that the policies should be reviewed. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 20:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
    Obviously you are reading a different discussion to me, since it seems quite clear from what he is saying is that he knows policy elsewhere but not here where he is running for adminship, nothing to do with subtlties of interpretation. To quote one of his responses below "Those are wikipedia policies, not wikibooks policies." --pgk 00:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
    pgk, please don't take Johnny's quote out of context -- that's unfair. Husond stated that Johnny does not warn vandals before blocking them, to which Johnny responded that there is no policy on warning vandals on Wikibooks. This was misinterpreted by Gwernol, who stated that Wikipedia has a policy on warning vandals, which Johnny, in turn, responded with the quote above. He was confirming that Wikipedia does, indeed, have a policy on warning vandals, but his admin history is from Wikibooks, where they do not have a policy of warning vandals. He's never said that he wouldn't warn vandals before blocking them, and he has, indeed, agreed repeatedly to follow Wikipedia policies. --Wolf530 (talk) 07:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
    I don't believe I am taking it out of context, maybe I didn't quote enough to give a full context his original response was to someone saying he didn't warn vandals *here* "Oh, in my defense (since people are looking at my wb logs), we don't have any policy about warning vandals...", I read that as we don't do it on wikibooks is the reason I haven't being doing it here IIt could hardly be a defense otherwise). That is I know the wikibooks policy but not the wikipedia policy and have been applying the wikibooks policy here. That is exactly not what the original comment here was saying when it declared that he knew the policy, that fact that he later goes on to agree to abide by wikipedia policy is irrelevant. --pgk 10:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
    No, it's not irrelevant at all. He was opposed because he didn't warn vandals on Wikibooks, not because he didn't do it here. He stated there is not such a policy there. He never said he would follow only wikibooks policies here on Wikipedia, that is people making a leap without evidence. This RfA is one of the worst examples I have seen in recent times of people completely failing to look at the important issues of whether someone can be trusted, and instead people are taking off and running with the wrong things. It's fine if you oppose, but please put some effort into deciding what's best for the project, and not get sidetracked from the important issues. - Taxman Talk 11:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
    "He was opposed because he didn't warn vandals on Wikibooks" and where did you divine that from? please read oppose #3, no mention is made of wikibooks by the opposer, look at the candidates contribs here, there are many edits with summary rvv which aren't followed up by warnings, I can see absolutely no reason to believe the original opposer was refering to his activity awywhere but here. Trust is only a part of the issue. There are many people I trust totally, I wouldn't support them to be admins on Wikipedia though. A good understanding of wikipedia, it's policies, customs etc. is also an important facet. So far in two areas that understanding seems to be coming up short. It is irrelevant in that no RFA candidates says any different, of course they say they will follow the appropriate policies etc., what most people use is what they do now to evidence that. FWIW I've actually put myself in the neutral camp, but the responses of both the candidates and the supporters are sure doing a lot to persuede me into opposing. --pgk 12:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • (deindenting) I agree with pgk on this. Husond was talking about SB Johnny's contributions to Wikipedia, not Wikibooks. Husond said: "You apparently never warn vandals after reverting their edits" no mention was made of blocking vandals. It was SB Johnny who leapt to the conclusion that Husond was talking about Wikibooks. SB Johnny claims he follows Wikipedia policies, but the evidence shows he doesn't. Gwernol 13:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Ah, if that's what he was saying, then I did misunderstand. Though as far as I know there's no policy saying you have to warn vandals after you revert them, is there? I do warn vandals who I notice are in a "campaign" of vandalising multiple pages, but usually it's just an IP making a newbie test, and I generally feel I've spent enough time reverting without giving the vandal more undue attention (I sort of run under the theory that attention-getting is probably the main motivation for vandalising, hence I give no more attention than necessary).
    • I actually thought it was about vandals I block, not reversions. I don't use the "you are blocked" tag on wikibooks, but as far as I know no-one else does either. Seems to me that a good janitor doesn't need to hang a sign on every window he wipes saying that he cleaned it, same thing with reverting vandalism and blocking: just a sweep of a broom, a job done, move on and clean up the next mess. --SB_Johnny|talk|books 21:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
There are a number of reasons why adding the warning text to talk pages is important. If the user made a genuine mistake, it lets them know that their edit has been reverted so they can fix it. If they are a vandal it tells them that someone noticed and they can't get away with vandalism. I find that users often stop as soon as they are warned. Finally it gives other editors and admins a way to see what a user has done in the past. If gives a quick record of the level of vandalism (if any) on an account. That way we can quickly determine if an account has a prior history or is simply a new user experimenting. That changes the severity of future warnings and/or blocks. As you will now have the power to block users it is important for you to understand that we give a series of warnings to users before blocking. This is because we assume good faith and give people a chance to avoid blocks where we can.
There is a policy saying you should warn vandals after reverting them - please see WP:VAN which says "you see vandalism, revert it and leave a warning message on the user's talk page." Gwernol 15:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I've seen it, but in many cases it's not really worth the trouble, so I ignore that part. Part of the reason is because my anti-vandal activities are usually related to my watchlist (which is extremely large), so I tend to pop in, see edits, make a look-see, and revert if necessary. I'm not reverting because of a desire to enforce policy, but rather to remove garbage from pages which readers might want to use (I'm firmly of the belief that Wikipedia is "by the Wikipedians, for everyone", rather than "by the Wikipedians, for the Wikipedians"). If the vandalism is particularly disturbing or if I have time, then I leave a note and/or make an entry on AIAV (did one of those today, actually... follow my contribs if you want to see the sort of case where I decide the extra effort is necessary). In any case, that's why I mentioned above that I probably won't be doing a lot of blocking except for in extreme cases.
Maybe a bit of background on my intolerance for BS: 1. I'm probably a bit older than you think, 2. I'm a dad, 3. I run a business, 4. I'm a farmer. Especially as a farmer, I have very little tolerance for BS: BS belongs in the compost pile :). --SB_Johnny|talk|books 17:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

New topic (we don't seem to use sections-headers on RfAs, eh?): If I were to start this all over (which it looks like I'll have to sometime later), I'd maybe talk about a conversation I had on IRC today with a wikibooks admin who I'm mentoring. We were talking about how to use certain tools, etc... policy at wikibooks is quite thinly spread, so our newer admins just play Q&A with older admins to get a feel for the ropes.

As we were having this conversation, I realised that my favorite tool is Special:Import (which I don't think wikipedia has, or perhaps even needs due to the large number of contributors here). Import differs sharply from other tools in that it's not a "defensive" tool (like block, protect, rollback, or delete), but rather a tool that exists solely for the purpose of helping to create content.

It's kinda funny with today in mind too, because I had to request admin assistance on #wikipedia-en today to have a page undeleted so that I could import it. The admin wasn't sure what to think of this (I'm embarrassed to say that I forget his/her moniker), first offering to email me a copy of the page text, not understanding that it was the full contribution history that I was after. Long story, but I'll tell it because I think it's interesting stuff to know, and perhaps might throw a bit more light onto what I'm about:

  • <begin story>Import brings all versions of the page to the importing project, and we did have a local copy of the text from just before deletion, but since it was transwikied (by me) before we had Special:Import enabled, the contribution history was on the talk page, not on the history page. The way we used to do transwikis was to copy-paste the text, then copy-paste the contribution history onto the module's discussion page (module means "page" on wikibooks). The wikipedia article was deleted because it was really nothing but a how-to guide, and so after I had copied it, I nominated it for AfD (result was delete).
  • But today (since it was raining and therefore I was free to play on wiki) I was working on the page I had made from the transwiki, and realized that I needed to merge the content with another wikipedia article (Slug... you can see the result at A Wikimanual of Gardening/Slugs if you're curious). But of course it didn't make sense to merge one page from import and one from C/P transwiki, which is why I needed to "properly" re-transwiki the deleted article using Import. </end story>

Anyway, is that enlightening as to my approach to good use of admin tools? Looks like I'm going to have to do this again, so I'd like to know how to present my "good intentions" a bit better next time :). --SB_Johnny|talk|books 21:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I changed my vote, because I think it's insufficient to Oppose. --PaxEquilibrium 23:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Co-nom Support (after edit conflict) - I've already said my piece :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 20:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support He doesn't seem like the best candidate around, but he could learn from the best Admins we have. Wikipedia always needs more meat for the grinder. Sharkface217 20:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
    Gee, thanks! --SB_Johnny|talk|books 20:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support Based on this editor's discussion at my user talk page User_talk:Durova#Um In particular, I really think adminship should be about adding drops to the bucket, not accepting a huge responsibility. We have 8 (EIGHT!) active admins on wikibooks. We're all so overburdened that we just shrug off the backlogs. I've been actively campaigning to get more admins, because even if they only used the tools once a day, at least it would be one less thing I had to do. This editor approaches the nomination from an unusual perspective - one that makes me grateful I share my admin responsibilities here with more than 1000 other people. Obviously this is someone who has demonstrated genuine dedication to the Wikipediverse and - I have a hunch - both wishes we'd toss a few more crumbs of participation over at Wikibooks and intends to be a reasonably active sysop on this project: definitely mopworthy. Durova 23:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support Everyone who isn't likely to abuse the tools, should have access to them. Every little bit helps. Errabee 02:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. Moral-ish support I don't think he would misuse his tools. I probably wouldn't have commented either way on this RfA except that so many of the opposes are based on a hypothesis for which I just don't see any evidence. I've never seen one of these mythical newbies whose contributions are meant in earnest but are systematically so incompetent or poorly executed that they are indistinguishable from vandalism. Running through the gamut of warning templates for someone whose contributions consist of nothing but adding "is a buttmunch" after people's names is a plain waste of time, and I support a candidate whose goal is to reduce time wastage. Opabinia regalis 04:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support. Although those that oppose have brought up some valid points, this user has stated that he will mostly use his admin tools for trans-wiki-ing. In addition, he has stated that he will follow Wikipedia policies, even if he doesn't agree with them. This includes warning vandals, and the only reason he hasn't been doing it (on Wikibooks) is that they don't have a policy for it. In other words, if given the admins tools, he would warn vandals (on Wikipedia) before he blocked them. I think we would be doing a disservice to Wikibooks if we did not give him the admin tools, becuase his main purpose is so use his Wikipedia admin tools to help Wikibooks. NauticaShades 11:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support. Admin on Wikibooks and Wikiversity; I believe that he'll be able to adapt to the Wikipedia way of doing things. I see that he's struck out his intention to semiprotect "finished" articles (which in my mind seems like a bloody good idea, since a study found that vandalism is about the only edits those articles get), and as for "not warning vandals", I've seen existing admins who don't warn vandals, revert their other vandalism, or block them! Besides, as Taxman has pointed out above, that was on Wikibooks. [ælfəks] 12:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support - I like this guy and he does a lot of good work. I think most of the oppose votes below come from the fact that the candidate decided to air some of his ideas about policy, which makes them comments about his positions on policy and not really comments about his suitability for adminship. I have no qualms about giving him the mop. --Aguerriero (talk) 20:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
    Yeah, Maybe an RfA isn't the best place to say exactly what you think of policies, other than that policies need to be followed if we're going to have them. My point with the block thing is that I'll probably not do it too often, because of the multiple steps involved. Complaining about policies ≠ declaring an intention to ignore them. --SB_Johnny|talk|books 10:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support - SB Johnny is a good editor with a cool head and a load of common sense. I support him wholeheartedly. We need to be encouraging more people like him to apply for adminship! — Catherine\talk 08:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
    Support - SBJohnny does excellent work on Wikibooks. Some people seem to think his attitude is bad, as if there is only one way of doing things. Some of what he says makes sense, to me, and he consistantly shows civility, hard work, and openness. There's more than one admin that sounds all peachy until they get the tools , then become something else. He's at least saying what he feels and , for one, I think he's right. As for not warning vandals...vandals are making Wikipedia a wreck, and the real vandals ignore warnings. --68.116.135.242 14:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
    Sorry, only registered Wikipedians can comment in the Support, Oppose or Neutral sections. Gwernol 14:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support Unlikely to misuse tools. Hopefully he will learn more in days to come  Doctor Bruno  17:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support looks hardworking and trustworthy to me. -- Samir धर्म 01:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support Based on Johnny's comments, his willingness to follow "Administrators open to recall", and experience here, and on other Wikimedia projects, I think he's going to make a great admin. --Wolf530 (talk) 02:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support seems like a nice guy, I don't foresee any problems. Martin 11:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support- tho I have some slightly mixed views on this one - I think the candidate has indulged in rather too much dialogue in a reactive way for example. There are a number of issues here - the spread of the vote suggests that. The question I guess is what do you want from an admin? If you are looking for dedicated hard work you have it in spades in this user. If you want someone who will always toe the line and not speak his mind you might not be fully comfortable with him. However if all we have is people who toe the line nothing moves forward. Would he abuse the tools - extremely unlikely. The very openness to recall makes me far more comfortable with him than people who do not accept this view. For these and a number of the reasons already stated I am happy to support. --Herby talk thyme 12:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support - SBJohnny does a lot of good work on Wikibooks. I doubt he'd misuse the tools. I like his attitude, and he's enthusiastic....if a bit too much dialogue, like Herbthyme said. But he is good at the small details. --Shrieking Harpy Talk|Count 16:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support a lack of admin-activity from a user is a really, really stupid reason to oppose a nomination. I am unconvinced by the other posted reasons. KazakhPol 19:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose per "there's a lot of articles that are quite good ("finished", in a way) that would be appropriate for the autoconfirmed level of protection.". -- Steel 19:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
    Boy you guys are just lookin' for a reason to oppose, eh :-)? I think people often confuse wikipedia with a web forum... encyclopedia articles are not "threads", and don't need to disappear to the bottom of the list when people stop "posting" on them. Have a look at Cucumber, for example. There's really not that much more to say about cucumbers! It needs a good copyedit by an experienced wikipedian, but it's unlikely that a brand-new editor is going to come along and totally rewrite the article that would represent a major improvement. On the other hand, it does attract a lot of vandals, and aside from interwiki linking, there's been little change to that article besides vandalism and the reversion of vandalism.
    Your opposition for this reason assumes bad faith on my part. I'm not offended, but wonder if you really thought about it before snapping to a jugdgement. --SB_Johnny|talk|books 20:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
    That statement goes against the whole point of a wiki (openness) and shows lack of knowledge of the semi-protection policy here on en.wikipedia. I also don't appreciate being accused of "snapping to a judgement" or assuming bad faith. -- Steel 20:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
    Sorry steel, my "accusation" was meant in a circumspective way, not in an accusatory way. I honestly didn't think that my views on protection would be offensive, I'll strike that since I clearly am not "in the loop" with respect to that policy (keep in mind that I would only do that in response to a request by one (or hopefully more) editors who were sick and tired of reverting inane vandalism). On the other projects I'm a sysop on, I watch the logs of new administrators to see if they might be going astray... I've never had to correct anything, but I would if I felt it apropriate. --SB_Johnny|talk|books 20:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per that quote that Steel picked out. Not only is this a bad idea, its against core policy. Having an admin going around judging when articles are "finished" and protecting them is a very bad idea. Gwernol 19:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose I'm sorry but I must oppose. You apparently never warn vandals after reverting their edits, and you acknowledge that you wouldn't be a very active admin (I can't see why would you need the tools then). You're a good editor and your transwiki work is most commendable, but perhaps you need more involvement in administrative-oriented tasks on the English Wikipedia before becoming an admin here.--Húsönd 19:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
    Oh, in my defense (since people are looking at my wb logs), we don't have any policy about warning vandals... quite the contrary, the way we deal there is to block vandals on sight (which probably helps explain our relative lack of vandal problems). --SB_Johnny|talk|books 20:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
    Please read our policy on warning vandals. I'm afraid you are just wrong about this. Blocking vandals on sight is only justified in the most extreme cases and anyone who is going to start doing that routinely should absolutely not be given the admin tools. Gwernol 20:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
    Those are wikipedia policies, not wikibooks policies. As much as I just might think the wikipedia policies on this issue are nothing but creepiness, I'm smart enough and responsible enough to follow them. As I said above, "the "blocking rules" on wikipedia are a bit too bureaucratic for me to bother with'', so I don't see me doing a lot of blocking here... mostly just when vandals revert my reverts and need a little wikibreak. Honestly I think that policy needs some changing, but I'm not about to (a) put my thumb in the dike, or (b) go around being Mr. Rogue Admin (we don't need more of those!)... one good way to make a bad policy worse is to apply it unevenly. --SB_Johnny|talk|books 21:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose - semiprotecting 'good' articles? no real statement, why do you think should you be an admin? ST47Talk 20:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
    Well, why not? It's supposedly not a big deal, eh? (I mean the syssop tools, not the protecting... I wouldn't protect without a request, and my protection would be logged on the requests page, in case I was in error and needed to be corrected). I'm a very good admin/mediator elsewhere, and certainly wouldn't do any harm with the tools here (I might help a little, and that's all you should want, right?) --SB_Johnny|talk|books 20:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose - as per above. --Duke of Duchess Street 20:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose - I feel terrible when I vote against someone in an RfA but I'm really worried about a couple of points SB Johnny has made.This idea of protecting articles is a nonsense, a total nonsense. IP users updating your so called "good articles" would be barred, as would newly registered users. I'm further concerned by the way you've U-turned on your comments, saying you'll strike them as they are making people nervous. This, to me, shows no evidence of an admission your ideas are against policy and the whole idea of Wikipedia and more of a desperate damage limitation exercise to try to prevent your RfA from failing. I'm further concerned by your civility towards Steel above and what I perceive to be confusion between the policies at Wikibooks and Wikipedia. What is perceived to be vandalism here can simply be a misguided edit or typo error and blocking on site is both against policy and except in the most disruptive of cases, damned stupid and damaging. I do feel terrible in saying this, but not only do I think you don't really need the sysop tools, I feel Wikipedia here would be safer if your not a sysop. As I say, I'm terribly sorry but that's my thoughts anyway. Best wishes for the future. Heligoland 21:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
    OMFG... no wonder you guys are understaffed :). U-turned on my comments? Yeah, that's how I'd like to do things, but I wouldn't do things against consensus, so I struck them because I decided I shouldn't do them. Adminship is supposed to be "no big deal" (at least that's how it is elsewhere). Even if I did f- up, protected pages can be unprotected, blocks can be undone, deletions can be undeleted. I'd like to do things one way, but agreed after criticism that I shouldn't do things that way. Are you looking only for someone who agrees wholeheartedly with every policy (not you, Heligoland, I mean in general)? I'm not on a mission to change wikipedia, much less the world. I'm just asking for the tools because I'd find them useful, and I wouldn't ever use them if I thought it was inappropriate. And if my view of appropriateness didn't jibe with consensus, someone would (I'm sure) quickly step in and set me straight.
    The reason we have administrators is so that "trusted (and I would add willing) members of the community" can be around to help good-faith editors create a good encyclopedia. Administrators aren't bosses, and they're not required to do anything in particular... the only onus that comes with adminship (in my little world) is to use your tools to help fellow wikipedians out when they need it. I'm more than happy to help (and that should be clear enough), and I'm volunteering to help, but I'm being shot down because people think I'm just going to do whatever I feel like with the tools, rather than following consensus. I'm not the sort of person that would do that... in fact, I'm a bit of a nit-picker when it comes to following the rules. I don't like the rules here, but I'll follow them, because ignoring bad rules is sometimes worse than just following them.
    I'm a very good administrator. I bend over backwards to help people in need, even when I'd much rather be working on my own projects. No-one's ever said I was unfair... quite the contrary. I'm frankly overqualified as a new admin, even though I might be a bit opinionated (but at least I'm honest about my opinions, eh?), and might not be sure about every policy (and who is, really? the only policy that matters for admins is "don't use the tool if you're not absolutely sure", and that applies to the new admin just as much as the veteran).
    That's what I meant when I unintentionally hurt steel's feelings: you're making all sorts of assumptions about how I might abuse the tools. Why not just say: "I'll support you, but you need to know that this, that, and the other thing won't fly... is that OK with you?" Wikipedia administrator candidates shouldn't feel like the weight of the world will fall on their shoulders on the day they're sysopped. That's not fair to them, and it's not fair to the "everyday contributor" who might )understandably) see adminship as being more than it is. It's just a few tools, to be used with discretion. That's all it is, and that's all it should be interpreted as.
    Heligoland: this soapbox speechifying should in no way be interpreted as a commentary on you in particular... your comment was just that camel-back-breaking straw :-). --SB_Johnny|talk|books 22:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
    Hi SB Johnny, I really appreciate your comments, they provide much more insight.
    I'm not sure if you think I'm a sysop, but I'm not and that's why I'm concerned about pages being protected, true, semi-protection isn't a big deal but full blown protection is and I certainly don't like this idea of having to shout on a sysop to unprotect an article simply because I would like to continue editing but it has been protected it during the editing process. I don't feel I can support you, if I could have done, I would have. If I were a sysop, I'd feel my editing abilities less threatened and I might be more neutral, but alas I'm not and I strongly feel if you were an admin you could and possibly would protect pages and possibly prevent me and certainly prevent new and unregistered users from editing. If you wish to continue this discussion, drop by my talk page. Kind regards Heligoland 00:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose per the above concerns regarding your interpretation of Wikipedia policy. Protecting "good" articles is nonsensical, as many times edits help make the good article even better. In addition, I find your snappy remarks on this RfA troubling, especially your response to ST47's oppose. On Wikipedia, as is in real life, sometimes it is better to just stay quiet than to express your thoughts to the rest of the world. Otherwise, your other edits are productive, but your philosophy and attitude makes me unwilling to let this pass. --210physicq (c) 22:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
     :D Well, I am being a bit WP:POINTish, but that's intentional (I'm only disrupting my own RfA, which isn't really what the policy is aimed at). I am, under normal circumstances, a rather calm, reasonable sort of guy, who tries to lead other people to act like calm, reasonable people when they seem to have forgotten that they're calm, reasonable people when they're at their best :-). And yes, I am gaming you guys a bit, because I think there's a lot of very good editors who really should get the tools, but are scared shitless of the "RfA voting cabal". Now don't get me wrong:this is a genuine RfA... I really would like the tools. But I'm not emotionally invested as most candidates are, which is a good thing because this would be rather hurtful if I was.
    I want all of you who have voted in opposition to rethink your votes (again, I'm a good admin, and there's nothing to fear about me but fear itself, which may be enough for you, but not for me). And I want you to rethink your votes in the context of what being an admin really is, because I strongly believe that this RfA is a perfect example of people seeing adminship for what it's not. I'd like you to think again, and look at me again, using these criteria:
    • Am I a trusted member of the community? Well, I don't think anyone really distrusts me, and there are those (like Doc) who know me well and fully trust me.
    • Do I have a good reason for wanting the tools? Yes I do. The undelete-import-redelete thing is actually the one that's most important to me, because I really do care about user's contributions being duly attributed.
    • Would I use the tools for the benefit of the community and follow the consensus of my fellow wikipedians? Yes, of course I would. Even if it went against my own principles, the principle of consensus is more important that what I think would be best.
    And to respond to the comment below, as well as all of those above: I'm not "digging a grave"... this isn't a matter of life and death. It should never be taken that seriously! I think metapolicies like Don't be a dick and Don't be dense aren't, in fact, the most basic of all policies... the most basic of all policies is "we're all here for one reason", and that reason is to build an encyclopedia. Admins just have a few tools that newbies proably shouldn't have (depending on the disposition and/or wisdom of the newbie in question). We ask for the tools because we think our fellow wikipedians need some assistance doing things the software only lets admins do, and realise that having an extra toy or two would help us to help them. That's all it is, and that's all it means.
    If a good faith editor (with a good solid history of being such) asks for the tools, we shouldn't assume that the moment they get the toys, they're going to become demons. We've all made a mistake or two when we were newbies. Newbie admins might make a mistake or two too. But if they've a history of good faith, why assume they'll act any different as an admin?
    You have before you in this RfA a good, conscientious contributor, with proven mettle as an admin on a much more difficult project. A user who laid it all out in the nomination, and has on this very page showed a willingness to conform to poicies even when it goes against his view of things. I'm pretty much the worst case scenario of a guy who would be a good admin, but pisses people off :). And I'm sure you have no doubt by now that if I wanted to "game" my way into adminship, I'm smart enough to have done it.
    I'm not about playing games with wikipedia. I'm about helping wikipedians make the world's best encyclopedia. I am playing with you guys a bit, because I think you guys (the RfA voting cabal) need to back off a bit and be nicer. There's nothing wrong with opposing a nomination if the user has a history of trolling. Honestly, there's nothing wrong with opposing my nomination, because I am, to be honest, trolling you a bit (but in good faith, because I think some rethinking on this page will lead to good things). Look at the contribs. Look especially at the contribs on talk pages, and the version after that contrib to see how people address the candidate (a certain amount of vetting will go on there to save you some research). Don't vote if you can't be bothered to do that... this isn't an election for prom queen, it's just a routine decision about whether to give someone a few tools.
    Just an aside: I know I'm coming off pretty harsh, but please unsersand that I love wikipedia, and I love you guys for even bothering to vote (even in opposition!)... I know your opposition is rooted in a desire to protect the thing we care about in common. I guess I just see the new (or potential) administrator the same way I see the new contributor: as someone who needs to be encouraged, accepted for all their faults, and corrected if necessary. Sorry for the long speech (well, not sorry, but something akin to sorry!) --SB_Johnny|talk|books 00:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
    Change to strong oppose. Not only have you proven all my points correct, but (pardon the strong language) you have essentially blinded yourself in your self-righteousness. The last thing I (and many other editors) wish to encounter is an arrogant and condescending admin who refuses to recognize his/her own faults, let alone learn from them. We are not doubting your worth on Wikipedia and the community, but we are doubting that you will use admin tools in a sensible manner. When I went through RfA around 2 weeks ago, I avoided answering to opposes as much as possible, due to the fact that I will incriminate myself (quite the antithesis of your reaction). While you are correct in saying that RfA is no big deal, it is also not something to be aloof and careless about. One more thing: it is bad form to campaign on your RfA, as it only prods people to see how egotistic the candidate is and hence oppose them. Since the topic of behavior of RfA is brought up, here is my thoughts on the matter: I use your behavior on an RfA as one of many gauges of your potential behavior as an admin. Your behavior on this RfA is one of the reasons of my oppose, and you have served to bolster my contention. I'm sorry, but your making of comments is only shooting yourself in your already-bullet-ridden foot. --210physicq (c) 03:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose Must you comment on every single oppose vote you get? You're just digging your own grave by getting all worked up and emotional (and incivil) on other people's votes in your RfA. Nishkid64 22:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose per above. — CharlotteWebb 01:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose I thought hard about this one, read it this morning and gave it some time to think over. Coming back I was able to read some of the replys to concerns other raised and it just seems to snowball. I also have concerns regarding your interpretation of Wikipedia policy. Sorry but comments that you could game the system to get the mop just show a lack of thought before posting and a admin needs to represent the job well when talking to other user about their actions. TheRanger 01:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose My main "encyclopedic" reason for opposing is not leaving warning messages after reverting vandalism. That's very important; how are the good faith editors supposed to know they're doing something wrong? And if they are intentionally vandalizing, they should be warned so that they can be blocked as soon as possible. My other reason for opposing is that SB Johnny seems to get overly emotional, at least on this RfA. --Db099221 03:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose per lack of vandal warning. Michael 03:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose I also hate to vote against people, but I'm a bit worried that candidate shows a fearful lack of Wikipedia policy and practice. I might agree with several of his principles, but they are clearly not Wikipedian, and the fact that the candidate openly spoke them seems to show that he didn't know that such responses would only hurt his cause with the voters. I encourage you to stay a while longer, and read up on policies, and perhaps come back after you're a bit more familiar with policy and ready to contribe. Good luck. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 04:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose per all the above concerns. I personally do not like to oppose an RfA nomination unless it is for very, very strong concerns and reasons. I suggest you withdraw from this nomination and come back again after two or three months. In the meantime, do not lose hope. However, I have to agree that if you are elected as an admin to this project, you definitely would not abuse the added tools, given the similar position you hold in the other projects. --Siva1979Talk to me 11:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. - Mailer Diablo 16:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose per all above comments. Policies and such differ from different projects, even ones in the same language. We don't want to make wikipedia look like a closed community. Blocking any editor who made a mistake on their first article, simi-protecting "finished" pages. I'm not saying you'll missue the tools per say, but you might need to understand our policies a little better first. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 18:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose Usually, if I can't find myself voting Support, I tend to either abstain or "vote" Neutral. Often, I will vote Moral Support for an "obviously failing" nom which is where this one seems to be heading... So I'm not one easily drawn to the oppose column (except perhaps when it comes to making bots admins). And I do find myself in the oppose column for good reason. And not for the comments by the candidate on semi-protecting articles- I think if he were to indiscriminately protect articles he thought were "finished", which seems to be the main concern of many above, it wouldn't take long before he was desysoped. An admin, at times, may be insulted, may be accused falsely, may have their every move scrutinized. This candidate has shown in his numerous comments to the above oppose votes that keeping his cool may be a problem. Jcam 02:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  18. Oppose, doesn't really understand the Wikipedia concept, do assume good faith and don't close the doors to strangers. --Terence Ong (T | C) 13:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  19. Oppose, I don't think you understand what administratorship is honestly about. I am not fond with your answers to the questions asked at the top.--Arjun 21:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  20. Oppose, per Jcam's rationale. Asteriontalk 19:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  21. Oppose. I always get a bad feeling when someone starts badgering every oppose vote on an RfA. Doesn't indicate the level of calm and maturity I look for in an admin. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 23:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose. Sadly, I oppose for now. I think the candidate needs more experience. I suggest several weeks (months if needed), and the candidate will become a oh-so-fine admin. Cheers and sorry again, mate. --PaxEquilibrium 22:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  22. Oppose per "To be honest, I'm not going to be one of the most active of admins on wikipedia." I would want an admin who was incredibly active. Sure, a lot of edits can get you far, but if I was to become an admin, I would use those tools to the fullest extent of what I can do. From the answers to the questions, I don't see that. Diez2 02:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  23. Oppose. For some things can't be compromised with. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 08:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  24. Oppose From the above comments it appears he has a serious issue with editors who are new or under IP addresses. Not letting them edit, or reverting them because you don't like them is a foundation issue and could result in something worse in your future. Adminship cannot be given to someone with this stance. semper fi — Moe 17:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
    If you mean by "semper fi" what I think you do, happy birthday, Moe!.--SB_Johnny|talk|books 22:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  25. Oppose The aggressive retorts to some of the oppose votes just doesn't sit well with me. Answers to a couple of the questions to the candidate seem rather thin as well.--Auger Martel 18:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral I hate to reject an enthusiastic and hard-working candidate. I suggest that he withdraws, does his homework and comes back in a few weeks.--Runcorn 21:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral Generally per the above opposes. The excuses so far being that the policy is different elsewhere, well we aren't elsewhere and here is where you are applying. As for I'd only protect if I saw a request, well why shouldn't we just get a bot to respond to requests, in fact why not open up page protection to anyone who can post on the protection page. As an admin you are expected to use your discretion to apply policy appropriately, if you aren't aware of that policy (and general custom) you can't do that. --pgk 21:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral. I think the candidate needs more experience. I suggest several weeks (months if needed), and the candidate will become a oh-so-fine admin. Cheers and sorry again, mate. --PaxEquilibrium 22:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. Neutral. This candidate's work on Wikibooks and Wikiuniversity should be commended and treated with highest honor and respect. However, over time Wikipedia-EN has gone through a lot of growth (more than any other Wikipedia project), and thus a highly evolved bureaucracy (and one might even argue government) has developed. We have policies and guidelines that govern how things are handled here, and these have wide consensus among community members. I (and many others) feel that these policies must be well-understood and accepted by potential admin candidates. While I feel that Johnny is well-meaning, if perhaps a bit overeager to defend his side of the story, his ignorance of "how we do things here" will inevitably result in problems and misunderstandings if he is immediately given sysop tools. Johnny, if you're as eager to help out here as you are on other wikiprojects, you should do just that. Start editing articles on the English Wikipedia, gradually familiarize yourself with our policies and bureaucracy (the deletion process, dispute resolution, etc.), and come back when you feel that you have a good grasp of how things are run around here. I would definitely support you then. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 12:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
    Take a look at Johnny's contribs. He has been quite active in both the article space and the WP namespace. --Wolf530 (talk) 16:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. Verbose neutral The consideration of the question of whether the net effect on the project of a user's becoming an admin will be positive has long disposed RfAs for me, and my broader RfA guideline counsels that, in situations where I cannot with any measure of certainty draw a conclusion as to the nature of the net effect of a given user, I ought to !vote neutral. Am I certain that Johnny, in view, inter al., of his amiable demeanor and deliberative temperament, would not, qua admin, abuse or volitionally misuse the tools? To be sure. Am I certain that Johnny, in view of his appreciation for the ministerial nature of adminship, would not, qua admin, act in a fashion he should think appropriate where a community consensus does not exist for such acting (e.g., as regards the semi-protection of settled pages)? Yes. Am I certain that Johnny, in view of what is ostensibly fine judgment, would not act, qua admin, in areas with which he might know himself, especially upon his being so informed by another, unfamiliar? Yes. I am not at all certain, though, that he is sufficiently acquainted with policy and practice as to be able to know whereof he does not know, such that I am not certain that he might avolitionally misuse the tools. I am not at all troubled by a candidate's profession that he might use the tools very infrequently or might use the tools only in a very specific area, since in either case one might nevertheless be able to conclude that the net effect on the project of his using the tools will prove positive. Here, though, Johnny doesn't intend to confide himself entirely to one area—which is quite fine—and so the infrequency with which he might properly use the tools must be weighed against the frequency with which he might inadvertently misuse the tools and thereby oblige another admin to consume time remedying an error (I'm certain, I should say, that Johnny would readily and civilly correct any error he might make upon his being apprised of his having erred), and I can't well approximate how the relationship betwixt the two and so I am–regretfully–neutral. Joe 06:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
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.