Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sasquatch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Sasquatch

Vote here (26/2/7) ending 03:04 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Seems like a great guy to me. He participates in vfd alot, reverts vandalism, and does not have editcountitis. He has been using edit summaries almost since the beginning of his Wikipedia career, which started on 00:39, 19 November 2004. Tool shows he has 1128 edits, as of about 10 minutes ago. I definitely feel he will wield the sacred mop wisely, and I hope no editors will be harmed in this RFA. --Phroziac (talk) 03:11, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I gladly and honorably accept this nomination. Just as a note: before you vote, please read all I have to say to the questions below rather than judge based on edit counts (after all, editcountitis can be fatal ;-)). Thanks! Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 05:28, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. For the reasons above --Phroziac (talk) 03:36, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  2. support because he helped me on IRC far more than he needed to. njaard 04:58, 2005 July 21 (UTC)
  3. Support - he edits a wide variety of articles, and he's a great help on VfD as well. --Idont Havaname 05:45, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support seems like a fine user.  Grue  08:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support friendly editor with a penchant for housekeeping.  :-p Tomer TALK 17:37, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support a man that knows what he's doing.--Moosh88 19:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support. I'm impressed by the answers to the standard 3 questions, and to the pretty off-the-wall additional ones. Lack of edits might be a concern (but I'll take quality over quantity) and his answer to the first neutral vote is tellingly true (as long you as you promise the double-negative was one of the typos!). Does VfD/RC/copyvio and other editing too so has looked around some. -Splash 00:35, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
    Alright, I fixed that typo... Boy I feel kinda dumb after checking that answer over. =S Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 02:47, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  8. Unconditional support.  Denelson83  01:31, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support. This user has shown good evidence of commitment to Wikipedia and has made significant contributions throughout the wiki. A pleasant and helpful individual through my experiences on IRC, and through evidence on talk pages. The answers given to the adminship questions below are honest and provide good evidence of this user's intentions to use administrative privileges well. Sasquatch will make an excellent asset to Wikipedia as an admin, I am sure. I wholeheartedly support this user's nomination for adminship. --NicholasTurnbull 02:56, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  10. Support. Great user, I've never seen him around actually but looking at his contribs hes good. Plus Brandonfarb below needs to be caged. As long as its not a straw man sock you got my vote ; - ) Redwolf24 05:21, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support. As a matter of curiosity, where do you think the sockpuppets in the Oppose column come from? Have you upset someone on the wiki lately or have they just picked someone at random? — David Remahl 08:06, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
    I don't think they're socks. Boothy443 opposes almost every RfA and has been around for ages. Brandonfarb has turned up recently, made an extremely unlikely nomination and cast a distinctly off-colour vote (with a total of some 10 edits). The Bureaucrats will know what to do, I'm sure. -Splash 14:07, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  12. Wikifever isn't a reason to deny adminship to you, sir. Andre (talk) 09:30, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  13. Support. JuntungWu 06:47, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  14. Nothing wrong with replying to comments. --User:Merovingian (t) (c) 12:41, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
  15. Strong Support The trolls and sockpuppets really seem to hate you... which suggests that you're certainly doing something right. Great work on VfD, strong vandal-fighter, helpful edit summaries. Damn fine admin material. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:05, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
    Support Involved and brings a lot of enthusiasm to our community.Pamstar 15:42, 23 July 2005 (UTC)Please note that this is the users (Pamstar) FIRST edit
    First, I would like to say I am hesitant to cross any votes out on this page as it would constitute a conflict of intrest, however after seeing [1]. It has become increasingly clear that Pamstar is Rainbowwarrior1977 (talk · contribs) as Rainbowwarrior used to wrong account to sign in that time. That being said, I am personally discounting this as a sock puppet vote and hope other admins pay attention. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 22:30, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
    It has been brought to my attention below that this user shares a computer with Rainbowwarrior1977. However, I still believe this vote should not count as it was the user's first edit which suggests something is amiss. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 04:21, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  16. Support. Sasquatch seems like a sensible good contributor, and I find the arguments of the opposition patently unconvincing. Radiant_>|< 19:09, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
  17. Support. I don't recall much interation with Sasquatch, which would normally mean my not participating in the vote, but I knew I'd seen the name somewhere recently. I was the admin responsible for the protection and unprotection in the Star Wars credits dispute. I was most impressed by the way Sasquatch managed to get the parties talking and come up with a solution that meant the articles were only protected for a couple of days rather than the month that seems to be the average. Combined with superb answers to the questions below and responses to the oppose/neutral votes I am more than happy to vote in support. Thryduulf 19:45, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  18. Support. Seems to do quite a bit of good work. I also like that there is someone else working on Alberta mayors. -- JamesTeterenko 19:54, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  19. Support. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:56, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
  20. --Kbdank71 18:50, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
  21. Support. Good VfD contributor. android79 01:48, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
  22. Support - the sockpuppets swung it for me. the wub "?/!" 08:12, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  23. Support I have met Sasquatch a number of times, notably in VfD and I think he would make a very good addition to the Admin team.-Poli (talk • contribs) 14:11, 2005 July 26 (UTC)
  24. Support. I've seen Sasquatch around Vfd, and am happy to place my vote here.--Scimitar parley 15:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  25. Support. Sasquatch's work on VfD and vandalism shows he knows his way around the 'pedia and has the admin spirit. - Thatdog 05:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  26. Support. Very fine user. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 05:54, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
    Boothy443 opposes all adminship requests. --brian0918
    Looking at his voting history, I'm going to assume this is a "Wolf vote". Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 06:15, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
    Well i guess you just made and ASS out of both you and me then, but being that your seeking adminship i should have just assumed that shouldnt i, but that just seems to be the type of admins that wikipedia is looking for. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 07:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
    Thanks for the input? Jeez... don't really know how to respond to that... guess you must be one of the nice people =) Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 07:13, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
    well then here is an idea, withdraw your nomination. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 07:24, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
    Why exactly? You do realize the reason I labelled it a that in the first place is because I found it amusing that your User page redirects to that. Offence was never intended. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 07:34, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
    Oppose -- BMIComp (talk, criticize) 08:10, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
    After some completation, I decided to change my vote to neutral: I don't oppose your adminship, I'd just like to see more from you before I can support it. I also agree with Kelly said, about warning users. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 00:21, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
    I know you're not required to but could I have a reason if possible? Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 17:12, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Not nearly enough edits and most of them are very recent ones, as if the nominee were "ramping up" for his run for admininstratorship. His comments on this page border on obnoxious. And why does he have to respond to each and every comment on his nomination? Seems a bit creepy to me. Definately NOT the kind of person we need running this system. Ick!Rainbowwarrior1977 03:34, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
    First I'd like to point out the irony of me responding to a comment about me responding to too many comments =S Second: How can I be ramping up for a nomination someonse else made? The main reason my edits have been so clumped is because a) summer means I have more free time and b) i caught a sever case of Wikifever. Third: I respond to comments because I more or less view this as a kind of RfCriticism so I can know what I can improve, it is my RfA afterall. And last: I think you have a misconception of what admins do. They do not "run the system" but rather get 2 main conviniences for janatorial purposes: 1) having ther "revert" or "rollback" button and 2) the ability to delete pages that either fall under WP:CSD or get a consensus for deletion at WP:VFD. In addition, they can also block/unblock users (but I don't plan on focusing on that unless I see something really attrocious, IMO blocks are the last resort as the wiki should be for anyone). Also, I think I should respond to any concerns on my RfA page as simple acknoledgement that I agree with them, see WP:CON. Afterall, WP is about consensus building, and how can you do that without discussion? Otherwise, thanks for you input! Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 04:41, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
    On second thought, was IS going on here? Whats with all the hassle, strike outs, swearing, etc? Did I miss something?Rainbowwarrior1977 19:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
    A bunch of sock puppet trolls are spamming oppose votes. The swearing is being done by the trolls, and I crossed several of their votes out (but have now moved them to the "Discarded votes" section). Please note that his responding to comments on this page is not a valid reason for opposing nomination, especially when he is responding to troll votes. The fact that he is receiving so much opposition from trolls seems like a sign that he is doing a good job in the anti-vandalism dept. For example, it's common knowledge that users who are active in janitorial and anti-vandalism work get their user pages vandalized regularly, and many have taken this as a compliment. -- BRIAN0918  20:39, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Would support after seeing more article edits. Seems like a fairly good editor on what's there so far so I wouldn't oppose him. Grace Note 06:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
    Hmm, thought this would come up. In response, I don't think my editting habits are going to change no matter how many I make and I think its more important how well I know WP policy and what not After all, WP can always use some more good admins =). Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 06:44, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Review of his edits and talk page shows nothing remiss. However, only 60 edits in user talk space suggests that this editor doesn't communicate enough with other editors, and especially shows that this editor is likely not warning the vandals s/he reverts. I'm therefore not comfortable supporting at this time. (And I want the option to "show contributions" that lets you pick a particular namespace back!) Kelly Martin 12:37, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
    Thanks! Will definetly work on that =). Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 17:19, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Perhaps I would support after seeing more edits, over a period of next few months. I wish him all the best.--Bhadani 17:03, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  4. For reasons stated above. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 00:21, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  5. Looks very promising, but still a bit short on user interaction. Keep up the solid work, and I'll support the next RFA for sure. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
    support. JuntungWu 04:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC) Neutral. I want to hear more about the allegations above. JuntungWu 05:37, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
    Allegations? Please clarify, I certainly hope you are not refering the comments from "Troll Hitler" which in itself seems like a sock. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 05:58, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
    Moving back to support after looking at the user history, talk pages, etc.. --JuntungWu 06:47, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  6. Neutral. Good contributor but I would prefer more contributions in the talk, user talk, and Wikipedia talk namespaces. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:12, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  7. moved to neutral. I meet Sasquatch quite often last days and don't want to discourage him. I would still prefere RFA say month from now. Oppose: the edits I checked are OK but vast majority of them were done during last 6 weeks. This makes me bit uneasy to make a judgement (hence oppose). Thanks for helping with dealing with vandals. Pavel Vozenilek 18:10, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
    No problem =) I will help to deal with vandals whether this goes through or not. Thanks for the comments! Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 02:50, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
    Number of sockpuppets on this voting suggests you are doing good work. Pavel Vozenilek 20:50, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
    Yea... though they are mildy annoying... Sasquatch′↔T↔C 05:29, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Comments

  • This editor, who, by all appearances is a well-balanced even-keeled human being, has very few edits, and so registering a vote about hir is either a matter of POV or an expression of abject faith in the stability of the unknown. That said, I'm not trying to undermine this RfA. I have, however, in hopes of clarifying a couple of potential issues, asked two (what are, IMHO, important) questions below, in addition to the general questions asked of every editor who comes up for RfA. Please note, the timestamp of my asking, and any subsequent responses, when considering this user for adminship. Tomer TALK 07:49, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
    You have good points, but, technically, any rfa vote is pov, isn't it? --Phroziac (talk) 13:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Of course. From my POV, he's a sound candidate for adminship. :-) Tomer TALK 17:37, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Regarding Seems like a great guy to me. He participates in vfd alot, reverts vandalism, and does not have editcountitis.: Is editcountitis a word that is widely understood? The only real results of a google search other than some CGI script and this article itself that I could find is a CVS log calling it a typo where the word editcounts was supposedly meant..[2] Are we talking about some disease where a Wikipedian just makes a bunch of useless edits for the sake of making them, or what? --Mysidia 13:20, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
lol. Editcountitis is when a person votes on RFA and completely or mostly bases there votes on edit count. I didn't know it was that uncommon, but it is mentioned on kates tool, which I assume to be the CGI script you referred to. --Phroziac (talk)
Yea, editcountitis is when people base their decision solely on edit counts rather than the quality of edits/user interaction etc. see WP:KATE or the kate's tool link above =) Sasquatch′↔T↔C 19:05, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
I see, thank you for clarifying what is meant by the word. --Mysidia 02:42, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment What the hell is going on here? What's with all the strike outs? Dont you think its unethical to strike out stuff on your own nomination? In addition, who gave this other fellow the power to arbitrarily void the comments of others in an open vote? And what is this obsession with edit counts? Are new user's opinions to be discounted? I didn't read that anywhere on Wikipedia policy. And Pam is my WIFE, guy, so please back off!Rainbowwarrior1977
    • Umm...... first, I have moved this to the "comments" section as it is a comment. Second, I did not strike out any of the oppose votes... If you look through the edit history, you will surely notice that other users did most of it. The only vote I struck out is the support vote, and as I said, I did it with "hesitancy". I did not void any comments and have continued to respond to them. However, since you have unstruck the votes, I will leave it that way until we can get this matter sorted out. And the whole point of "editcoutitis" is telling people NOT to be obsessed with edit counts... so I really don't know what you're trying to get at here... As for "Pam is my WIFE, guy, so please back off" I am sorry if I got it wrong, you have to admit that she made the exact same comments that you did right after which is suspicious to say the least... and according to your user page, as of July 22, 2005, you "have fifteen years of age". I was not aware you could get married at that age. Again, I apoligize if I crossed that off wrong but until you can provide evidence to the contrary, I shall leave it crossed as it is highly suspicious. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 04:00, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, its ok, I guess I should complain to that other guy that crossed off all the negative votes; it wasn't you. Anyway, why did he do that? Who gave him the power to unilaterally strike comments like that? And the edit count fixation to which I was referring involves those users who post "he has only 5 edits" after people's votes, as if new users dont get a say... Yes, Pam is my wife; we only have one computer here at our home in Orlando. All the best, although I still have to oppose, for now.Rainbowwarrior1977 04:13, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, sorry about any misunderstandings, the reason they were crossed off is that they are most likely "sock puppets". If you have no objections, I am going to cross off "Troll Hitler"'s comments and nomination as it is obviously bad faith. The others ones I will leave up to the beaurucrat's judgement. Again, I apoligize for any misunderstandings about your wife, however, (if it is alright with you) I wish to leave her vote crossed out as it was her first edit (most first edits should not be to votes as it implies that something brought her here other than than the norm). By the way, your opposition is perfectly fine =) Thanks! Sasquatch′↔T↔C 04:21, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

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

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
Well, I would really look forward to help close up the VFDs, CFDs, TFDs etc. along with my standard RC patrol (I would make good use of the revert button) as well as the standard speedy deletes (I already tag alotta pages for speedy deletion which which probably would add another 200+ edits to my edit count). I also would help out in mediating whatever arguements I notice like I already do.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
Most recently, I pretty much rewrote and started the Yogi Rock article which got onto DYK. Overall, I don't think I have made any super controvercial edits and only revert edits due to vanalism. I have never started an edit war (or ever will) as I always defer to talk pages (see Japanese war crimes and the talk page for evidence). I also help wikify new pages and general formatting (which by itself is not that important but when you keep it up, I think it deserves some recognition).
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?
I don't think anyone has ever caused me stress, but I have helped mediate some conflicts. The most recent one I can think of is over the credits in Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back and Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi. I have always kept a level head when editting and I think thats most important for an admin over anyhing. O, and of course I'm civil, good mannered and what not ;-).
4. When you say you'd make "good use of the revert button", I assume you're talking about the "rollback" tab not currently available to you. When you say this, what do you mean by "good use"? Tomer TALK 07:49, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
Only on RC patrol to rollback vandalism (as with using the delete process to speedy delete things that fall under CSD while patrolling Special:Newpages. Again, I have never started an edit war and never will. I think I've made it clear that if any of my edits do come into conflict I will automatically defer to talk pages rather than mindlessly rollback over and over again (which so often is the case these days =S ).
5. I presume you don't realize that you've made either typographical or grammatical errors (which, as a nitpicker, I've noticed) in each of your responses to questions 1-3 above. How do nitpicking editors "correcting" your edits affect your performance? Given adminship, how honestly, do you think that you would address any editor, even an anon, following your edits and correcting your spelling, grammar and syntax? Tomer TALK 07:49, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
I think that's the purpose of a Wiki. If any one member makes a mistake, it is the job of other users to correct it/improve it. I would be more than honored to have my own personal copy editor =). In fact, if you notice any blatant grammatical errors in any of my edits (including my own user page), I urge you to correct them for the benefit of other users so they can understand what I'm saying. Afterall, nobody's perfect nor do I expect anybody to be and we always have something to learn.

Discarded votes

  1. oppose. Seems, to me anyway, to take too much of a 'hands on' and personal approach to problems better solved with deliberation and reflection.Brandonfarb 05:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
    User has ten edits. Radiant_>|< 07:43, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
    Hmm? I'm not sure I completely understand that, could you clarify a bit so I can address the issue in my future edits? Again, in my answers to the standard question below, I provided evidence that I always deliberate and attempt to reach a consensus if any of my edits come under question rather than start a revert war. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 06:10, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
    On another note, why did you alter the page header here?. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 06:44, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
    Fuck off, cocksucker! I'm not answering any questions from the likes of you.Brandonfarb 03:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
    Sorry about that last comment. That just slipped out!Brandonfarb 04:00, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
    More nice people... Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 04:41, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
    Note: This lengthy rebuttal on the merits to an obvious sock puppet and known troll is evidence of either 1) Sasquatch's own collusion with the various sockpuppets on this voting, or 2) a certain foolish naivety that is undesirable in one with administrative powers.Bournesupremacyisreal 18:12, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Not nearly enough of a verfiable edit history. Most edits are minor and of little consequence. Besides, this user seems to bring out a tremendous amount of ill-will towards him (see above comments). For these reasons I must oppose.MikeLowryBadBoys 16:50, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
    The above user (MikeLowryBadBoys) has a total of 6 edits.
  3. Oppose. I suspect Sasquatch himself is the one behind the "sockpuppets" opposing him, in order to create controversy and inflate his repuation as one who is disliked by sockpuppets (and therefore must be "doing something right.") Sadly, this underhanded tactic seems to be working . . . (see above).Bournesupremacyisreal 18:12, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
    User's 4th edit. 3 were to this RfA. --Idont Havaname 18:26, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
    Just as a response to that statement, the "doing something right" can clearly be seen in my edits and reverting vandalism... I need not create sock puppets to make it look like I'm doing a good job as anyone can look through my edit history. (again, I may be beating a dead horse here but sometimes its better to respond to your critics as opposed to simply ignoring them). Sasquatch′↔T↔C 22:24, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. Seems like he has a hidden agenda of some kind, ya know?Troll Hitler 04:29, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
    Note: Above user has 3 edits (2 to this RFA, 1 other which was reverted) and a very poor choice of username if they want their vote to be taken seriously. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:00, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
    I have blocked this user for having an inappropriate username indefinitely. Talrias (t | e | c) 17:36, 23 July 2005 (UTC)