Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SebastianHelm

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] SebastianHelm

Final (51/0/0); Ended 22:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

SebastianHelm (talk · contribs) - SebastianHelm has been editing since Jan 2003 and is an active contributor. He is a calm and mature voice with a helping nature even in heated environments, where he is respected by all. I can see that SebastianHelm is both polite and very knowledgeable about policy and would be excellent at determining the consensus in these. I can see that he will be an excellent admin.Pharaoh of the Wizards 03:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I accept the nomination for Wikipedia adminship. — Sebastian 20:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I would use admin privileges sparingly. Currently I'm mostly involved in mediations, which is an area where admin tools would help me be more effective. For example:
  • when we need a "cool down" period to stop an edit war, I wouldn’t have to bother other admins with requests for temporary page protection – and I could make sure that it’s really The Wrong Version that gets protected ;-)
  • It would help me understand the history of a conflict if I had access to deleted pages.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I have been involved in a number of diverse areas:
  • I founded Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation, where I was fortunate to bring editors from both sides of an extremely fierce conflict together at the same table, working together constructively. This is of course not only my success, but the success of all people who participated.
  • I contribute to making Wikipedia a welcoming place. When I see someone making new contributions, I welcome them, and I improved our relevant tools and pages, such as Wikipedia:Introduction‎.
  • I helped create the Criteria for speedy deletion. Among other things, I systematized and named them.[1][2]
  • Articles I improved or created include translations (e.g. Equisetum palustre), merges (e.g. Swing Kids) and an article created from “what links here” (Swaraj). (More details here)
  • I understand the mechanics of templates and helped build WP:WARN.
  • I organized families of categories (e.g. Category:Physics with subcategories[3]) and participated in TfD (around this time).
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: As a mediator, I am constantly involved in conflicts. Thanks to techniques I learned in the last year, such as nonviolent communication, I feel I am successful at helping editors out of stressful situations. Before learning these techniques, I was party to some fierce discussions which caused me a lot of stress, so I sympathize with people who have strong feelings about an issue.
4. User A and User B are having a dispute. The dispute is currently confined to the talk pages of the two users. User B tells User A not to post on his talk page anymore. User A posts another message to User B's talk page. User B approaches you (as an admin) asking you to block User A. What is your response? K. Scott Bailey 15:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC) --Alternate question added.
A: That’s a great case for informal mediation! The appropriate response, of course, depends on the situation, but here’s a typical sequence:
  1. I’ll look at what user A actually wrote. Often, user A has a point but wraps it into aggressive language, so that the point gets lost. Sometimes A just misunderstands how Wikipedia works. Sometimes, what A writes is just so embarrassing for B that B feels a need to delete it. Most of the time, I find something of value in A’s post.
  2. Since it was user B who contacted me, there is a chance that they will listen to my advice. So I will express A’s message in a way I think B will understand. For instance, if B is an experienced editor and refers to policies themself, I will base A’s point on policies. Often I use e-mail for this, which allows for less guarded communication.
  3. More often than not, B will (eventually) get A’s point, and we can find a way together that meets both A’s and B’s needs. If our communication was by e-mail only, then this case can be settled in a way that saves both parties’ faces. — Sebastian 16:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


5 Optional question from User:SJP I have a hypothetical question for you. Lets say one day you are editing wikipedia and a new user comes to your talk pages and asks "What is the meaning of the policy ignore all rules?" How would you answer this user? Thanks for your time:)--SJP:Happy Verterans Day! 00:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
A: I see “Ignore all Rules” just as a catchy abbreviation. The full rule says (at least now): “If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.”
Since you are new, you don't have to worry about this rule. The good news for you is: You are not required to learn the rules before contributing. People here are encouraged to be nice to new users, and if you’re not aware of a rule they’ll generally nudge you more or less gently in that direction.
But if you’re aware of a particular rule, and you feel you need to break it, think twice. Make sure that breaking it really improves Wikipedia. If people sense that someone is using that rule to serve his or her own purpose, they can get really angry.


6. An administrator has blocked an editor and you disagree with the block. What is the policy about unblocking and do you intend to adhere to it?--MONGO 08:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
A: I would of course contact the blocking admin, not just because WP:BLOCK#Unblocking says so. (I would use either talk page or mail, whichever seems more promising. Talk page has the advantage that everyone can see that I’m following the policy.) Since I described a typical case above, let me describe an extreme case now: About a year ago, I took on a mediation case that was opened by a new user who had trouble with an admin, who was a very good RC patroller. I thought it would be the usual case where I can calm down the new user and settle the case without a big stir. Instead, it turned out that it was the admin who was grossly overreacting, to the extent that I became afraid of being blocked by them myself. So I reported the case (a bit hastily) at AN/I[4]. I was disappointed when the incident was played down by groupthink. (A week or two later, the blocking admin got into similar trouble and left Wikipedia.)
This is of course an extreme case, but I just want to mention this here to show that I’m aware of some of the pitfalls of being an admin. — Sebastian 18:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

  • Links for SebastianHelm: SebastianHelm (talk · contribs · deleted · count · logs · block log · lu · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · search an, ani, cn, an3)
  • I believe that RfA contributors should only vote their conscience and only support the nomination if they think it is good for Wikipedia. I will therefore not canvass any thank you messages on people's pages who voted for me, nor will it affect my attitude towards anyone who votes against me. — Sebastian 21:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/SebastianHelm before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Support
  1. As nominator.Pharaoh of the Wizards 02:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  2. --U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. deleted contribs 21:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  3. Although I'm new to the Mediation Cabal, I know Sebastian to be a great editor, and unofficial mediatior. Good luck, Qst 21:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  4. Amazing user who has been here for ages. Good luck!--I wish you a happy Veterans Day 21:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  5. Strong support I have worked with SebastianHelm on the Sri Lanka Reconciliation project and can attest he is a SUPERB mediator, calm, rational and fair. He has my utmosst support. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support per mediation cabal work. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 22:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support. Looks like he will make a good admin. --Bduke 23:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support offered to nominate him myself a few days ago. He's been here for ages and clearly a responsible user. And just in case any "no need for tools" opposition comes from his answer to Q1: although Sebastian may not be particularly interested in becoming a slave to the admin backlogs, giving him access to admin tools is still a plus for everyone. Pascal.Tesson 00:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support I think that this user would make a really good admin. TOL 01:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support Met him a few times. Good mediator. --Paul Pieniezny 01:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support - of course. Addhoc 01:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support SebasitanHelm was the one who helped to stop many edit wars over Sri Lanka related articles. Always cool and collective. Will be a GREAT admin Watchdogb 02:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support Viel Glück! Carlossuarez46 03:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  14. Strong Support Would have gladly nominated him myself. But the Wizard beat me to it:) the admin tools will be an asset to this candidate given his decision to get involved in conflict situations as a mediator Taprobanus 03:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support as, for one, Pascal. Joe 06:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support, good luck, you will be fine. Neil ☎ 12:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support, impressed by the candidate's understanding of conflict situations, serious mediation skills, and what he helped accomplish at Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation. I would like to see more of that among administrators. Whether he "needs" the tools or not, the tools just might need him. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  18. Strong support - i'll take this opportunity to say that i really appreciate the 1RR userbox plus the 'happy to help' at his userpage since he really strives to help at the Sri Lanka Reconciliation project. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 13:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support A good editor as well as a great mediator. Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Siva1979Talk to me 13:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support As per Siva1979 - A good editor as well as a great mediator.Lustead 14:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support - without a doubt, all the best. Khukri 15:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support Reconciliation WikiProject looks like a great idea and Sebastian being an admin will further strengthen it. Sinhala freedom 16:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support A kind user. NHRHS2010 talk 16:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  24. Strong Support per answer to my question above. K. Scott Bailey 17:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support, seems to be a fine, level-headed editor with a lot of experience and excellent mediation skills. Good admin material! Dreadstar † 18:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support, appears to be a solid candidate based on mediation skill and answers to questions. --Coredesat 18:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support--MONGO 19:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support because of excellent edit count and quality, and great answers. Bearian 19:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support I have been impressed with SebastianHelm ever since he helped untangle the mess at the Cascadia disambiguation page and the accompanying mess at Pacific Northwest. I'm sorry our paths haven't crossed much since then, but I do ask him for a third opinion from time to time. Having admin tools in his mediation toolbox can only be a good thing. Katr67 22:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support seems great. Sumoeagle179 22:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support Very much so. Jmlk17 23:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support Great answers. Phgao 06:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support Qualified. --Sharkface217 06:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support. Although my personal interaction with the candidate is limited, he seems to be an excellent mediator (my impression is based on his own posts and others' evaluations of him made outside this RfA). The admin tools should prove useful in his mediation efforts (with tasks such as page protection, blocking, viewing deleted histories, and so on). – Black Falcon (Talk) 07:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  36. Very strong support Loads of experience in disput resolution. We need someone like him--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 18:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support. I'm glad I decided to check out RfA today. SebastianHelm is a great asset to Wikipedia and his dispute resolution activities are particularly notable. He's intelligent, adaptable and willing to admit errors. This is exactly the sort of fellow who should have the sysop bit. Vassyana 00:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  38. Thought he was an admin This is a Secret account 00:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  39. Support Clio the Muse 02:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support Good user and editor. Should be an asset. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  41. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 08:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support I know Sebastian since December 2006 when he displayed his outstanding mediation skills on Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-20 Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. Then both of us started the WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation(WP:SLR) on 29 January 2007 which is a dedicated project to revolve the content disputes in Sri Lankan Civil War sector. I have good faith in this editor for his neutrality and his mediation skills so I hereby recommend this user for the mop and bucket and I know that Sebastian will do his mopping, very carefully. Thanks and good luck! --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 13:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
    Thank you so much! Without your enthusiasm, good ideas and dedication (including mopping), this project would never have started, and I really should not have written “I founded SLR” above. Your participation was more important for WP:SLR than Larry Sanger’s for Wikipedia. — Sebastian 20:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  43. Support He's doing a sterling job as a mediator, and admin tools will definitely help him be more effective. In my view, he'll be a great asset to Wikipedia as an admin. -- Arvind 18:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  44. A good user. Acalamari 03:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  45. Support John254 03:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  46. Support. Mature and respected contributor. utcursch | talk 04:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  47. Support - this user has been around for a long time and appears to have been very useful. :-) Lradrama 09:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  48. Strong Support As someone who has been watching and occasionally trying to help out with Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation, I feel I can strongly endorse his becoming an administrator. This WP is a groundbreaking and focused attempt to find a “third way” to resolve disagreements over a related body of contentious articles rather than watch the same edit wars replay themselves on one page after another. (In fact, it might not be a bad idea to have a new type of admin ... a mediator-admin.) Askari Mark (Talk) 18:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    Thank you for the nice description of WP:SLR. I'll reply about the mediator-admin on your talk page. — Sebastian 20:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  49. Support — Save_Us_229 16:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  50. Support per 50 being better than 49 ;). -- Jack 17:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  51. Support dedicated user, unlikely to abuse the tools! Tiddly-Tom 19:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose
[edit] Neutral
Neutral, leaning support. Long absences give me a bit (not much, but a bit) of pause, as does the answer to #1. As adminship is no big deal, though, I'm leaning toward support, but will stay neutral for now, pending further discussion. I'm especially interested in reading the answer to the IAR question. K. Scott Bailey 03:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC) switch to support
Just to tell you that it is normal for users to go on a long wikibreak for various reasons. NHRHS2010 talk 16:58, 8 November 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.