Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sarge Baldy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Sarge Baldy

final (56/0/0) ending 02:17 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Sarge Baldy (talk · contribs) – Hello! I've been an administrator for about two years, and recently revoked my status so as to confirm it. This is because my initial vote garnered a total of only four votes after a period of only a few months as an editor– people no doubt have a better impression of me now, and can judge my character a bit better. Sarge Baldy 02:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept (self-nomination).

Support

  1. Support good editor but I'm confused about why he depromoted himself just to apply again. --Jaranda wat's sup 02:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. WhiteNight T | @ | C 02:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support an administrator who asks for the community to confirm his status? We should make all administrators do this, annually. Editing should be every user's primary function. Otherwise we'll be left with a needlessly complex, not to mention mindless, bureaucracy. KI 03:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support. - Phædriel 03:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support - A well deserved. -- Szvest 03:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™
  6. Support. Thanks for answering my questions below, although I realize now I perhaps should have put them under "Neutral." JHMM13 (T | C) 03:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support. Now this is an interesting one...I considered voting oppose because of him saying he'd "[use] janitorial powers only per convenience when I see them to be necessary." Then again, he is trustworthy (2 years worth), and why must good editors be promoted only to waste all there time on trolls and red tap? Since we have hundreds of admins, I don't mind having some like this. Just make sure you put your name under "inactive" on the admin list.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 04:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support, unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support, if he was deemed worthy the first time and demoted himself to make sure, I see no problem whatsoever with him being an admin again. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 07:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support, Hell, I don't know the the Sarge from personal interaction but, from what I've seen in the past and around this is one guy that knows what he's doing and an asset to the project. It would be an honor for me to vote for him. Tony the Marine 08:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Level-headed contributor. Countering systemic bias is always good. Support. —Nightstallion (?) 08:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support. Should have remained an admin. — JIP | Talk 09:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. And here I was thinking why he's on RFA. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 10:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support. The editor is good, and so is the initiative of asking for admin status confirmation in a case like this. And teh bishpoints for teh selfnom, for sure. --Bishonen | talk 11:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support William M. Connolley 11:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC).
  16. Support. He hasn't been drunk with power so far, no reason to suspect it might happen in the future. Rje 12:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. STRONG SUPPORT The fact that you resigned to regain you powers is positive. --Chazz88 12:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support --Terence Ong Talk 14:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support. A genuine Wikipedia editor, would be a genuine admin. - Darwinek 14:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support: --Bhadani 14:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  21. Cool. JuntungWu 14:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support Izehar 14:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support This user has been, and will be, an awesome admin. I commend him also for being circumspect about his powers, and seeking confirmation. Cincinnatus would be proud. Xoloz 17:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support; everything I've seen is good, and asking for confirmation is an admirable gesture. Antandrus (talk) 17:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  25. Very strong support -- Francs2000 18:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  26. Yep. Has caused no harm in the past, and expect same to continue. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support -- JeremyA 19:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support. Usually on RFA we're guessing how a user will behave if given adminship, here we know. Of course the RFA cliché is particularly appropriate here. David | Talk 19:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  29. King of All the Franks 19:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support. —Kirill Lokshin 20:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support, keep up the good work. — TheKMantalk 20:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support. He could just have started an RFC on this and saved us all the paperwork, but the user in question seems useful. Let him be admin again.Image:Weather rain.pngSoothingR 21:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support --Revolución (talk) 22:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support. As you were - carry on, Sarge. Grutness...wha? 23:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support--MONGO 06:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  36. Support, but could make use of edit summaries more often. PS2pcGAMER 12:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support. Good user. --Kefalonia 14:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support. Resigning as to succesfully reclaim shows integrity of the user. Kusonaga 16:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support. Before looking at Rick Block's list recently, I thought that you already were one; and your strong support of WP:FAITH is another thing I like to see. --Idont Havaname 18:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support How awesome is awesome? -max rspct leave a message 20:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  41. Would that all admins would seek periodic reconfirmation support! ++Lar: t/c 01:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support, of course. Lar raises an interesting point above... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support, should make a terrific administrator. Hall Monitor 18:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  44. Support. As someone who has edited several tennis/tennis player articles, I see Sarge's edits in those pages a lot and they are always correct ;) Candice 01:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support I don't think we need to do this, but he is a good one. --rogerd 04:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  46. 'Support Snakes 06:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  47. Obvious Support no brainer for me.Gator (talk) 14:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  48. Support. I'm especially impressed at his desire to ensure that he maintains community support for his adminship. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  49. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 21:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  50. Strong support. I admire your initative to confirm your sysop-hood. - Mailer Diablo 01:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  51. Support. Everything looks good, get back in to the fold! xaosflux Talk/CVU 04:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  52. Support. Remiss for missing the first time...Mackensen (talk) 03:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  53. - Guettarda 15:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  54. Support. I wish I heard of Wikipedia back when you needed 4 votes. --Jay (Reply) 00:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  55. Support. Out of the ordinary what you did, but I understand and I like it so definitely. --Chris S. 09:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  56. Support. Corrected a lot of my edits. and added many useful templates to them. - Nick C 16:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  • Oppose for now. Good editor with an ungodly number of edits, but I'm not entirely sure how useful he will be as an admin. Only 135 user talk page edits doesn't show too much user interaction, which is a crucial duty of an admin (warnings, consensus, etc.). Also, I'm not sure I think this user needs to be an admin considering his answer to question 1. In my opinion, an admin needs to check WP:AIV, for instance, to help other users without admin powers. And question three really bothers me since an administrator's duties are practically filled with structural stuff (where, yes, you have to deal with white males). Why does an anarchist want to become and admin? I'm willing to support if these questions are answered. JHMM13 (T | C) 03:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Personally I see active intervention against vandalism as a poor use of resources- most of the time it would be reverted promptly anyway, and simply patrolling RC does little to advance the encyclopedia, it simply counters threats that I (personally) don't consider a primary concern. To some degree, I would agree that I'm not the most productive of administrators- I just like having the tools at my disposal when I see a need to use them. I also can't see why my politics are on trial here. Sarge Baldy 03:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm satisfied with that answer about your admin productivity, thank you. Your politics aren't on trial, I was simply asking a question. The main issue I was considering is why you seem to be against white males like myself when you are feeling particularly upset with Wikipedia. I'm not implying that you've done anything like this before, but will the fact that I am part of the structural biases affect your reasoning if I am up for blocking? JHMM13 (T | C) 03:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
        • No, of course not. In fact, I fit into most of the categories I listed- I'm just saying that the Wikipedia inherently has the POV of its user base, and find that it strongly leans towards a certain minority, which causes some problems. I think it's great that that demographic is helping out- I just wish there was more diversity overall in the user base, so as to get a more complete picture and cover topics that aren't receiving enough attention. Sarge Baldy 03:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

  • Edit summary usage: 86% for major edits and 87% for minor edits. Based on the last 100 major and and 100 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and Talk namespaces.
  • I will say when I first came here I was sort of inspired by your RfA Standards... I have to re-read it every now and then to make sure I'm not lifting the bar too high :). WhiteNight T | @ | C 07:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    I suppose that I'm just a strong proponent of the "assume good faith" policy. I think most users are here in order to improve the site, and think it's beneficial to Wikipedia to give them more tools to do so. Removing power from those few here simply to abuse it makes more sense to me than giving it individually to the masses perfectly capable of managing it. Isn't that the entire logic of wiki anyway? Sarge Baldy 06:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
    Good answer. I hope you have no hard feelings about me being so harsh with my questions. I was just trying to figure you out :-). JHMM13 (T | C) 14:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
    Not a problem :) Sorry if I reacted as if there were some hostility. Sarge Baldy 10:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't see the use in re-affirming. Kingturtle 20:24, 4 January 2006 (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 check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A. I tend to deal with issues as I come into contact with them, and do not seek out problems in order to correct them. It makes more sense to me to keep editing my primary priority, using janitorial powers only per convenience when I see them to be necessary.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I think I enjoyed writing rationalization (sociology) most, because I found it an especially interesting topic at the time, and had a lot to say about it. Lynette Fromme was also an interesting subject to tackle, and one I thought to be a major gap in Wikipedia's coverage.
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. I'm easygoing most of the time, but certainly I've been involved in conflicts, most recently at anarchism, and previously at atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and September 11, 2001 attacks. (I'm particularly pleased with how the last of these turned out, as I was very frustrated at its previous definitive use of the word "terrorism".) I generally tend to assume good faith, and deal with people I'm in conflict with as rational human beings. When I get especially irritated I sometimes see Wikipedia as hopeless, due especially to inherent structural biases (male, white, middle class, Western, technophile), but most of the time I realize that any positive changes I make do help to improve the site, even if perfection is forever out of reach.
The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.