Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ST47 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

[edit] ST47

Ended (83/10/4); Nomination successful. --Deskana (talk) 12:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

ST47 (talk · contribs) - I'm proud and pleased to present my nomination of ST47 for adminship. ST47 may be familiar to some of you from his bot work, from Wikipedia:Bot requests to the Bot Approval Group. ST47 is a friendly, civil editor whose interactions with me have been entirely pleasant: I'm continuously impressed by his work ethic, and his dedication to the project. It should be plain to see that having the administrator tools would be a great boon to his work with the bots, and to his work with identifying vandals. I'm convinced that he would be an excellent choice as a Wikipedia administrator.⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 19:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

IMPORTANT NOTE: This is not actually ST47's 5th RFA. His 3rd nom was declined, throwing off the number scheme.

Co-nomination from Sean William: I first ran into ST47 at WP:RFCU, where he has recently begun clerking. ST47 has been doing an excellent job both there and elsewhere, especially the bot approvals group, where he is the only non-administrator. I was quite astonished to learn that ST47 was not an administrator; He has done quite a lot of work relating to the inner processes of Wikipedia, and has an excellent work ethic. Swatjester has said everything that I would like to say already, so I say this: ST47 would be a great asset to Wikipedia if given the tools. Sean William @ 20:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Co-nomination from TheFearow: I met ST47 at WP:BRFA when I was first starting out in the bot world. Since then, I have run into him many many times, especially requesting things that could be done as an administrator. With over 130 contributions to AIV, and a huge amount of contributions to many other maintenance pages, i'm certain promoting him can do nothing but good to the community. I was incredibly surprised several days ago when I discovered he was not an administrator, and I don't get that much. Finally, I would 100% support ST47 in any situation - he's a civil, stable, and valuable contributor. This is the sort of editor that adminship iwas intended for. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 09:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Co-nomination from Shalom Hello: I guess this is already overkill, but I've been waiting several months for ST47 to volunteer his services toward cleaning the administrative backlogs. His general participation, and his specific contributions to the complex workings of the Bot Approvals Group, demonstrate a unique set of talents shared by few others among us. Shalom Hello 19:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you, I accept the nomination. --ST47Talk 12:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Candidate's statement:

Good evening, ladies, gentlemen, and aliens of all ages! The nominators have said almost everything, but I'd like to add a few points. I made my first edit around August 2006. In Wikipedia, I make contributions in a variety of categories, including to bots, where I run several, wrote more, and am a member of the approvals group, and to checkuser, where I am a clerk. I'm active on IRC, however, of course, any binding discussion must take place on-wiki. In my time here, I've done about everything, including speedy tagging, recent changes patrol, and spam patrolling. With regards to bots, I run User:STBot, a category changing bot, User:BAGBot, a bot request reporting bot, User:AccReqBot, a account requests archiving bot, and User:STBotD, an interwiki bot. We've made over 100,000 edits. I've also written User:EBot and User:EBot2, archiving bots for abuse reports and suspected sock puppets. I've never been blocked, never received any vandalism warnings, and I have no userboxes on my userpage. Recently, I've been asked to RfA by several users, I've had 3 previous RfAs, and one declined nomination (linked below), and 2 editor reviews (1|2).

[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: The most important thing I would do is be available. I can watch Administrator Intervention against Vandalism and the Admin's Noticeboard. I can also watch for users using the "!admin" flag on IRC. I have email enabled, so I can be contacted that way, and I have a system at User:ST47/Now that will allow anyone to contact me without me even turning on the computer's monitor. As for other stuff, I can augment my duties at Requests for Checkuser by blocking sockpuppets where appropriate. I would try to keep the speedy deletion backlog down by deleting inappropriate articles and removing tags from articles which should stay.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best contributions to Wikipedia are my bots, as they continue improving Wikipedia and its articles while I am away. I consider the most important of the bots I've written to be User:BAGBot and its IRC companion, as it both makes an on-wiki report and informs me and other users of every new edit to a BRFA immediately. I've written temporary bots, such as one to update Wikipedia:WikiProject Kentucky/Watchall while the primary bot is inactive, and another to help User:White Cat update his user talk archives. My most active bot is User:STBot, who recently did some WikiProject tagging, but also is approved for replacing categories.
One of my favorite things to do with Wikipedia is to sit down with a cup of tea (Earl Grey, if you must know) and write a quick bot that gathers information and makes a report. Not only is it helpful to those who request it, doing this gives me experience with new things and gives me code I can reuse later.
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: Not really. There are a few users who have been trolling me on IRC, but that isn't an editing conflict, and on-wiki, I avoid needless conflict altogether, instead trying to resolve problems through reasonable means. As an example, a while ago someone disagreed with a BRFA I closed, and asked for a second opinion. Instead of saying that my decision was final, I asked another BAG member to review it. As an admin I will get into conflicts over decisions and actions I make, but I will make every effort to see the other side's point of view, understand his opinion, and either reverse my decision, explain why I think my decision is right and refer him to a noticeboard where he can get a third opinion, or ask for a third opinion myself.
4. Question from Heimstern: Would you comment on what has changed since your last RfA and why this is a better time for the community to grant you sysophood?
A: Of course I would comment! Since my last RfA, I've become more involved in the Bot Approvals Group and Checkuser clerking, both areas where sysophood could be helpful. One person mentioned that I "might be a little too fast with the delete button" - I feel that now, perhaps through being on op on IRC, I'm better able to judge when action needs to be taken and when discussion can solve a problem. I also had a problem with civility then, I feel that I'm more able to act in a mature way on Wikipedia. All in all, I've started doing several things what would allow me to be more of a mature user.
5. Question from Trusilver: Following up the previous question: During your last RfA, there were specific complaints concerning incivility. What are your views of your behavior during your last RfA? Looking back five months, what would you have changed about your previous RfA?
A: Completely wrong. I was incivil to other users, and that should never happen, not in the real world, but especially not on an online project. I apologize to anyone involved in that.
In regards to the second part, I would have remained calm and commented with reason rather than irrational attacks.

[edit] General comments

RfAs for this user:
Requests for adminship/ST47
Requests for adminship/ST472
 Requests for adminship/ST47 2
Requests for adminship/ST47 3 Requests for adminship/ST47 4 Requests for adminship/ST47 5

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/ST47 before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

  • "I've never been blocked, never received any vandalism warnings, and I have no userboxes on my userpage." (Quoted from above.) LOL! Shalom Hello 19:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    You laugh, but there are some who consider those equal evils. (kidding) --ST47Talk 20:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    They could consider this argument as canvassing, too :P Giggy UCP 22:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support per Pedro below. If the civility issues have been resolved, then that's good enough for me. This is an RFA, not editor review and we're not debating whether ST47 should be editor of the week. The question is whether we trust him with the tools, not whether he is a prolific writer. --BigΔT 13:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support as co-nom. Sean William @ 13:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. I thought you didn't want to be an admin! I say give him the mop, as in my opinion it's long overdue! :) -- Stwalkerster talk 14:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support I've seen examples of this user's good judgment – so I don't believe there is a concern there. I also don't see any more civility problems and think that they will handle conflicts reasonably. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia but that does not mean people can't help in other ways. Best of luck. GDonato (talk) 14:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  5. Mammoth Support - as per BigDT and GDonato. I haven't seen a single civility issue regarding ST47 for a very long time and his widespread contributions to wikipedia projects especially his bots and Requests for checkuser is very enticing. Since its nearly 5 months after his last RfA..I believe its about time he was given the mop...--Cometstyles 15:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support - Good editor, and I think after 6 RFA's, it's time to give him the mop! Politics rule 15:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support. As far as I can discern the issues in the last RfA have been addressed and the user continues to make valuable contributions and seems to understand policy well. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  8. Semi-automated Support Seriously, this guy is one of the monarchs of bots. Being on the help channel every day, I can see examples of his good judgment. Best of Luck! —« ANIMUM » 16:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support Civil, bot-guru, helpful. Actively around on spam-fighting IRC channel. I am sure he will make good use of the mop. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support - I've been impressed with ST47 whenever I've seen him. I've reviewed his contribs and I believe he will be fine as an administrator. I've also reviewed the opposes, and there's nothing in them that concern me at this present time, I believe they focus more on previous concerns which I feel have be answered. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support This user is unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support Nothing to suggest that the user will misuse admin tools. To me, answer to Q3 suggests that he'll take criticism under consideration, and isn't afraid of changing his mind if he does something wrong. PGWG 17:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    SupportI am going to support this time. I think this user does a tremendous amount of good old work, and my only reservation was civility, but I think he is at a place where that won't be an issue. Good luck!Stillstudying 17:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    Duplicate vote temporarily stricken. --ST47Talk 13:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support. Candidate has a satisfactory overall record; prior issues have been addressed. Newyorkbrad 17:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support. Appears to have improved tremendously from the last RFA, and, with the civility concern seemingly remedied, this user should make a good administrator. Carom 19:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support as co-nom. Shalom Hello 19:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support as nom ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 20:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support. The candidate demonstrates need for the tools. I have encountered this canididate (and supported them in previous RfAs) before and find them more than suitable for adminship. To address opposers, I offer this argument. I work in an amusement park. I drive roller coasters. I don't deal well with people, so being a roller coaster driver is a good choice as I sit isolated in my booth for long stretches of time. Other employees do deal well with people, and they work in merchandise and games, where their dispositions are beneficial. Both merchandise and roller coaster driving are essential to the park's operation, but to force either of us to switch positions would be a mistake. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 20:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support. Civility concerns raised in the past RFAs seem to have improved. Can be trusted with tools I think. IronGargoyle 21:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  19. "Good evening, ladies, gentlemen, and aliens of all ages!" - that did it for me. Giggy UCP 22:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support looks like a good user to me. Acalamari 22:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support Article writers don't need tools, policemen however do. Khukri 22:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support Good answer to #3. --LtWinters 22:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support. As co-nom, and as they are a great editor :) Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 22:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  24. Strong support. Some users are simply not good writers, and if they tried, would seriously reduce the quality of Wikipedia. ST47 is a great user who will use the tools wisely. Thus, ST47 should be given the mop and bucket. --Mschel 01:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    I don't know if that's a compliment or not :) (kidding, obviously) --ST47Talk 01:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support Great answers. I dig the personality. Give him toolz. the_undertow talk 01:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  26. Yes please. -- John Reaves (talk) 01:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support—he's not here for the ride. In my interactions with him, I received the impression that he is not secretive, overbearing, or arrogant about his bot work. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, he has shown that 1. he can use the tools well and 2. he can be trusted. GracenotesT § 01:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  28. Change to support based on clarification of Q3. Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 02:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    Thank you, sir! --ST47Talk 11:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support (and wow, up to number 5! is this a record of some type?) ViridaeTalk 03:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    As a matter of fact, sir, it's only my fourth: I declined my third. --ST47Talk 11:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support A valuable contributor (if not article writer) who has use for the tools, but would not, I believe, abuse them.--Kubigula (talk) 03:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support Great editor, would make a great admin. Smokizzy (talk) 04:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support - ultimately, thoug not a 'pedia builder per se I think WP has more to gain than to lose by you being an admin; if there are future civility problems we all know where they can be discussed. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support I believe this editor has put in enough time and work, and shows that they still have the heart through it all to continue. Plus, their editing skills aren't that shabby :). Jmlk17 05:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  34. Strong Support Really deserves the tools. Thanks for mentioning my few bots in there that you kindly wrote - much appreciated. You are long past needing the mop, and I believe this is the time for you :) — E talkbots 07:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support I've changed my mind. On reviewing his clarification on Q3 and looking over his edit history. I think that the benefits of such a strong editor with a mop in his hand makes up for any lack of mainspace experience he might have. Trusilver 07:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    Thank you vary much, sir! --ST47Talk 11:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support - in the several months since your last RfA, it is clear that the issues that were raised there have been dealt with. ck lostsword•T•C 10:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  37. Oh what the heck. —AldeBaer (c) 11:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support needs the tools. —Anas talk? 12:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  39. Strong Support Good user, fair, and sorry for the confusion on my part. He deserves the mop, give it to him!Stillstudying 13:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  40. Meh. I opposed him last time for lack of mainspace editing... still I see none of that. However, he blatantly could do with being an admin, instead of bugging others to do stuff for him. He's shown he's trustworthy. Maybe 5th time lucky? Majorly (talk) 13:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support or he'll continue cluttering WP:AIV and WP:UAA ;). -- lucasbfr talk 13:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  42. Weak support User is worthy, but bots will take over the world. Membership of AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD implies ST is not needlessly beaurocratic. In short, why not? who cares? --Bswiki 13:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    This account's first edit was 11 July 2007. --Bryson 18:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  43. Support - I can't see any problems. Clearly experienced and aware of policy, and the civility concerns are in the past and insufficient to merit an oppose. WaltonOne 13:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  44. Strong Support He could clearly use the tools. Oh, and the five attempts, I admire his tenacity. ROGER TALK 13:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  45. Support - hahnchen 14:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  46. Support. This user's administrative work is enough to convince me he should be given the tools, even if he doesn't write articles. - Zeibura (Talk) 14:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  47. Support. Clearly needs the tools and, from all the evidence I've seen, would put them to good use. Will (aka Wimt) 14:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  48. Support. Seems experienced and able to get what needs to be done, done. --omtay38 17:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  49. Support Great guy, both on and off wiki, plus the good old cliche. Kwsn(Ni!) 18:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  50. Support I am still laughing at his replies to my own nominator, Stillstudying. A hard worker with a sense of humor!old windy bear 22:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  51. Much Support ~ Wikihermit 23:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  52. Strong Support Your dedication, civility, experence and clear need for tools far out whiehs any points raised by the oppostion . I wish you the best of Luck. Cheers, Dfrg.msc 00:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  53. Support per BigDT. H irohisatTalk Page 01:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  54. Support I feel giving ST47 the admin tools has the potential to allow a lot of positive things to happen, which to me outweighs the lack of article work. CitiCat 02:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  55. It might have been better to ignore this instead of replying... but apart from that, nothing wrong. --Dark Falls talk 08:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  56. Support I am suprised ST47 has not been granted the tools sooner. Somitho 10:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  57. Impressive behind-the-scenes work, will probably have good uses for the tools to improve Wikipedia. I hope ST47 has taken the lessons from his last RfA to heart and do not expect problems. Kusma (talk) 11:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  58. Trust him not to do anything too crazy. ~ Riana ⁂ 12:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  59. Support per Majorly (this is a rite of passage thing?) Also, that someone retains the desire to help further after four previous requests is sufficient reason. LessHeard vanU 19:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  60. I missed it for this long? Support. —  $PЯIПGrαgђ  20:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  61. Support--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 20:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  62. Support - An extremly able editor. Jhfireboy Talk 21:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  63. Peacent 03:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  64. Support: This is long overdue. ST47 has been helping out around here for a long time and has shown true dedication to the project. --After Midnight 0001 11:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  65. Support See nothing now to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild 15:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  66. Support - dedicated & capable individual who will make good use of the tools --Versageek 20:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  67. Support - know editor from RFCU clerking duties; isn't quite what I like in the perfect RFA candidate but there are many types that work out in the end; several RFA attempts and subsequent improvement demonstrates motivation; we're not related despite similar user names. VK35 22:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  68. Support know from WP:BAG, is dedicated, and makes good choices. I also trust that ST47 will have the wisdom to avoid areas of admin duties they are not familiar with (e.g. closing contentious AFD's or borderline username reports). — xaosflux Talk 03:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  69. Support - You're not an admin already? Why not?!? As for his snide remarks being an issue; myself, I'm never snide or sarcastic on WP.... (in other words, is't a non-issue trying to become an issue!) - NDCompuGeek 05:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  70. Support. Demonstrates a clear need for the tools through his tireless work. While his namespace edits are low, it's not like he's been simply voting in AfDs, doing RC patrol and nothing else, which is the reason most people oppose based on low mainspace experience; he's actually played a large part in keeping this encyclopedia ticking, and the tools will only help him further. Ƙɽɨɱρᶓȶ 06:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  71. Support. Sasquatch t|c 12:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  72. Support particularly for his work at checkuser. --Strothra 13:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  73. Support. I have had nothing but positive interactions with this user of late. He does a lot of valuable work - especially vandal fighting and on WP:BAG. In my opinion he is trustworthy. It seems to me the problematic behaviour from previous times has been addressed and I see no recent evidence from those opposing to suggest otherwise. WjBscribe 15:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  74. Support 5th time's a charm. ~ Infrangible 15:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  75. Support Interactions and observations have convinced me enough to support. —Kurykh 06:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  76. Support, no reason not to! --SXT4\color{Red} \oplus 07:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  77. Support I have reviewed your history (an extremely colorful one), your contributions, talk pages - and especially your prevous RFA's. I feel you have grown on Wikipedia responsible enough to be trusted with the tools. Some people point out that you lack contributions to mainspace editing; but I feel comfortable seeing as you have devoted yourself to the "Wikipedia" side of the project (all the nitty gritty policies, AIV, Admin noticeboard, checkuser, etc.). --Ozgod 13:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  78. Support He seems to have improved on everything from his previous RFA, and his bot work seems outstanding. Willow177 17:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  79. Support Very friendly and personable. I see no reason to oppose. --Android Mouse 22:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  80. Support A good user. --Chris g 05:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  81. Support. Ye-heah (Metallica style.) Jon Harald Søby 14:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  82. Support bout time the user was made an admin, he's earned it. -N 22:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  83. Support - I think the editor is ready. --VS talk 07:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. While I acknowledge that your last RFA was in February, your actions during it are a big turn-off here for me, especially your uncivil snide replies. I therefore beg to differ from Swatjester when he says you're "civil". Furthermore, I am one of those who wishes to see admins write articles. In your last RFA you flat out said "don't write, can't write, won't write". Looking at your contribs I assume you still stick to this. Well, WP:ENC. I hope you can prove me wrong on both points and that I can switch to support. But for now it has to be oppose. – Chacor 12:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    Addendum: Now come to think of it, you're helping out on unblock-en-l too. Since you seem to have a need for the tools and the only real worry is conduct, make that a weak oppose. – Chacor 12:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    He's improved a lot since then, which is where I derived it from. Would you consider supporting based on that? ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 20:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    Weak OpposeAbstain - comments left in for other editors. Revised Q3 takes me away from oppose A review of your last two thousand or so contribs (and yes, I have made more than a cursory review) seems to have addressed the civility issues highlighted in your last but one RfA (and yes I have reviewewd them). Of course you still haven't written anything, but adminship is not about that, though I bet it gets bought up. What adminiship is is about trusting people to use the tools correctly. My oppose is therefore based on your answer to Q3 in regards to conflict I avoid that sort of stuff altogether - as an admin you won't be able to "avoid that stuff altogether" unless you don't use the tools, which is kind of the point of being an admin (i.e. not a trophy). Sorry, but making sure you will avoid conflict at all costs is not a realistic position for an admin. I know you stated what you would do in the event of conflict but I just can't see that being realistic either (I'll reverse my decision !?!?) doesn't sit to well. Pedro |  Chat  12:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    In regards to the Q3 point, I've clarified that: I do understand that I will have opposition to my actions, and I think what I said towards the end, clarifying how I would respond to that: if someone brings up a point that shows me that I screwed up, of course I will reverse my action. I certainly don't intend to ignore conflicts, I'm just not going to seek it out. If I do become an admin, I will make every effort to ensure that I understand why people oppose my actions and to make the right choice there, I meant to say that I will not cause a conflict - I've reworded the answer. --ST47Talk 12:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    [Edit conflict] To only quote the bit "reverse my decision" is bringing his answer rather out-of-context. There is a qualifier, "I will make every effort to see the other side's point of view, understand his opinion". Also, reversing the decision is not the only possibility ST47 gave. – Chacor 12:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    Sorry Chacor, I was not disregarding the qualifiers, I was reflecting the weight that I gave to the first part of the initial answer given by the candidate. I should have made that clear. My oppose is based on the "avoid that stuff altogether" bit. I do respect the answer given by ST47 (above) and his rewording of the answers. I will reflect further but prefer not to strike my comments or move position at this time.Pedro |  Chat  13:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose, the candidate adequately proved in not only the last RfA but also the one preceding that there are issues regarding the candidate's judgment. Even if civility concerns have been addressed, and I'm willing to assume that they have been, I remain concerned with the candidate's judgment. Lack of article writing is a much more minor, but also relevant, concern. · jersyko talk 13:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. Issues from prior failed RfAs have not been resolved. -- Y not? 14:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose After the candidate's unfortunate outbursts in the prior RfA, he would need to address all concerns before returning here. I'm uncertain regarding the civil question, but it is clear the candidate hasn't remedying article-writing concerns. I'm not normally a stickler on that point; but, in a case where bad judgment was visibly demonstrated at the last RfA, I expect evidence of true reform. Xoloz 15:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    Oppose per Q3. I'm sorry, but highly active admins armed with bots that "avoid conflict" are a recipe for disaster. Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 15:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC) Changed to support based on clarification of Q3. Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 02:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    Huh? So you'd prefer it if all our admins were inactive, technically clueless drama-seekers? That sounds more like a recipe for disaster to me – Gurch 18:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    That's not what I mean. I mean that I conjecture ST47 would be a highly active administrator, that he would be disinclined to discuss his administrative actions, and that the combination is not good. You savvy? Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 20:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  5. Strong Oppose (edit conflict)- Per answer to No.3 "Not really" I find that hard to believe if you have been around since August 2006 and have 10,000 edits. Also lack of encyclopaedic contributions, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia first and foremost.--Bryson 15:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    If it's not possible for someone to be here for a year and not have stress as a result, then we have some serious issues. --BigΔT 15:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    I would have to agree with that, to an extent. I've a couple years under my belt, with around 9,000 edits and almost a year as a sysop with over 3,000 admin actions in my logs. I've been stressed, but I've never been in a dispute necessitating edit warring, RfC or RfArb. It is indeed possible to not have conflict and to not have a dispute is not a bruise but a badge. Keegantalk 05:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. Apparent lack of commitment to building the encyclopedia makes me question the editor's suitability for the admin role at this time. Espresso Addict 20:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    The candidate has said previously that he's not a good writer. Should we withhold the tools he could use to help the encyclopedia in the way he's able to just because he hasn't helped it in another way? --Rory096 20:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    Many editors believe so. Pedro |  Chat  20:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    What other editors believe is not relevant (insert comparison to jumping off bridges). Do you actually think that the view that we should impair the abilities of those who aren't good at contributing directly to the encyclopedia to contribute indirectly, by not giving them the tools that they could use to help the encyclopedia in other ways, such as preventing vandalism? --Rory096 20:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    Why is this view so hard to understand? It has become quite relevant because of the increasing number of "policeman" (to borrow Orangemarlin's term) candidates. What it boils down to is this: We are setting up users who are not part of a particular discourse community (article writers) to make judgments on that discourse community in the form of deletions, protections, blocks, and so on. That is not an ideal position to be in. Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 20:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    (ec'd) (to Rory) With respect, you will scroll up and notice I did not oppose on the basis of encyclopedia building. Indeed I specifically wrote that adminship is not about that. You asked a question. I answered it. My own RfA suffered for lack of encyclopedia building and I withdrew it (although for other reasons). I believe that actually we need now to focus more on keeping the place clean for our readers, and have stated so regularly. Therefore your comparison to jumping off buildings is therefore groundless and offensive and I suggest you strike it through. The point is that many here believe writing is more important (or as important) than bots / vandal fighting etc. etc. and it is not right to crticise their feelings just because you feel they are wrong. Discussion is one thing, outright badgering is another. Pedro |  Chat  20:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    I believe that the only way to understand how the policies relating to notability, neutral PoV, referencing, fair use &c&c work in practice is to practice them by creating/editing content. Espresso Addict 21:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    I totally and utterly agree. I mean, there's a total lack of other admins and helpful users who would be willing to give advice on such a matter. Everyone here is such an ass. This opposition has my 110% support. </sarcasm>. Giggy UCP 22:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. Another policeman. Again, just my opinion, but a good admin needs to be a good editor (well, maybe just an editor). And civility concerns don't go away after a few weeks, but who knows. One of the opposes went through the contributions (as I did), and I didn't see anything troubling over the past few weeks, but what I did notice is a lot of bot reverts and the such. It's kind of hard to see personality with that kind of editing style. Finally, the answer to question 3 bothers me a lot. Admins are more than just button pushers--they should head off problems, build consensus, identify issues...lots of things. It sounds like this applicant just wants the power, and doesn't want to participate. Not interested. Orangemarlin 20:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    Oppose per Orangemarlin. Daniel 03:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Neutral. 03:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
    Oppose. I don't want to minimize this editor's good qualities, but we just don't need another policeman. This is an encyclopedia! We need article writers, and article upgraders, not more policemen. What is emerging is an increasing number of policemen telling the article writers what to do - a very very bad situation!Stillstudying 12:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    Duplicate vote temporarily stricken. --ST47Talk 13:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    I'd also take this opportunity to ask, why not? Someone posted this earlier:
    I work in an amusement park. I drive roller coasters. I don't deal well with people, so being a roller coaster driver is a good choice as I sit isolated in my booth for long stretches of time. Other employees do deal well with people, and they work in merchandise and games, where their dispositions are beneficial. Both merchandise and roller coaster driving are essential to the park's operation, but to force either of us to switch positions would be a mistake.
    --ST47Talk 13:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. While ST47's vandal-fighting has been very, very good, admins have authority over all sorts of things, and I see almost no work contributing content to the encyclopedia. I cannot place my trust in someone who does not have the experience of building the encyclopedia, rather than just maintaining it, given the irrevocable nature of adminship. User:Argyriou (talk) 20:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    Admins have no higher authority than other users, they are just members of the community who can be trusted with potentially damaging tools. Rlest 19:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
    I'm saying that I cannot trust someone with a perpetual, irrevocable (or near-enough so to not make a difference) license to use those tools unless I know that they have the experience of facing the difficulties which actual contributors to the encyclopedia face. User:Argyriou (talk) 21:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose per Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/ST47_4. Also, so many previous attempts make me wonder why he's so eager for the admin buttons. Civility issues raised at the last RFA concern me. Wikipedia is not some chat room; we have expected standards of behavior for editors. This will probably end up just being a protest !vote, but I think people who frequent the chat rooms should consider not participating in the RFAs of their chat room buddies. The conflict of interest should be apparent. Friday (talk) 17:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
    Friday also has a conflict of interest - he clearly dislikes the idea that wikipedians would dare to socialize with one another, and perhaps even, you know make friends. The 70+ supports above shows that ST47 has earned respect from his fellow wikipedians. It's a conflict of interest for Friday to oppose every admin candidate who dares to use "some chat room".I think people who don't frequent chat room should consider not participating in the RFAs of those who do. The conflict of interest is apparent. Take your anti-IRC issues off RFA and keep them to yourself --Blutacker (talk · contribs)17:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
    Certainly it's true that I'm skeptical of nominations of people who make lots of chat room friends. I've seen people (including some of the supporters above) support candidates I consider rather poor. There must be some reason for it, and humans being what they are, I suspect a tendency to support one's friends may be involved. So, it's good to have some people who lean away from supporting chatters, to offset those who lean toward supporting the chatters. That said, IRC usage is by no means a completely sufficient reason by itself- plenty of reasonable people use IRC, plenty of problematic editors do not. Don't sweat it too much- clearly those who tend to support chatters vastly outnumber those who tend to be skeptical of chatters. By the way, is there a reason you're not using your main account for this? Friday (talk) 18:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  10. weak Oppose I think he doesn't fit my 'basically beyond reproach', and 'contributes to the actual encyclopedia enough' standard. Not a bad editor, though, so whatever, I'm only a little below 'neutral' on this one. User:Pedant 06:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral. I took an hour or so to scan through his last few thousand edits, and I really do not see any of the behaviors that he was declined for in the last RFA. In fact, as far as civility goes, in the last month this editor has been exemplary. I am mostly a recent changes patroller and copyeditor myself, so I understand that it's possible to be committed to the project without contributing a lot of content. But at the same time I think that for the experience if nothing else, it's important for an admin to have at least a little experience contributing to Wiki proper. Trusilver 15:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Changed to support based on answers to questions 3 and 5. Trusilver 07:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  1. Neutral. Have worked with this user on check user as a fellow clerk. However, lack of encyclopedia contributions as well as issues raised on the last RFAs as well as the opposers's arguments have placed me into neutral. ɐpuɐɹıɯ 18:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral - I'm primarily impressed, but the opposes do have several points. For now my !vote is neutral. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 22:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    Per TRE. —AldeBaer (c) 04:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC) (changing to support)
  3. A lot of stuff to like about this RfA, and some (namely what Orangemarlin said) which is a bit concerning. Neutral seems about right. Daniel 03:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  4. Neutral - After reading the previous RfA, I have trouble believing that ST47 has "grown out of" the civility issues in 5 months. I realize that the issue has abated since February, but in my experience, people can't change their attitudes that quickly. The replies on the previous RfA started out rather benign, but escalated to borderline personal attacks. I could overlook one or two incivility issues, but in his own RfA? I find it to be very troubling. That being said, ST47's behind-the-scenes activities and bots are appreciated. Keep up the good work. —Travistalk 16:00, 17 July 2007 (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.