Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Seraphimblade 2

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] Seraphimblade

Final: (91/4/1); ended 00:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Seraphimblade (talk · contribs) - Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Seraphimblade. You'll find this user as a regular haunt around policy pages, and indeed I first encountered him on Wikipedia talk:Notability (music) and after a little looking around, was surprised to find that he was not an admin. This user is involved in all sorts of administration-related areas, including policy discussion, AfDs, vandal-fighting, BLP work, mediation and more. I was going to cite diffs of some of his work, but there is no substitute for scanning his last 500 contributions at a minimum, which give a better picture of this user than a handful of diffs. This user truly is an all-rounder, is calm under pressure and writes very good edit summaries. Contrary to what some think, his edits do not suck. :-)

Seraphimblade's first RfA, found here, failed mainly due to his lack of experience, which is certainly not an issue now. This user has nearly 8000 well-distributed edits and 6 months of genuine activity. Another concern was that Seraphimblade was blocked for allegedly violating WP:3RR during a content dispute. However, as you can see, the block was retracted by the blocking admin shortly thereafter. Also, after observing the situation from a distance, I can tell you that Seraphimblade was acting with consensus, and he was in fact awarded a barnstar for his help in resolving a dispute with the article in question. Please join me in supporting this great user. Grandmasterka 01:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, with appreciation of the kind words from someone who I greatly respect. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 01:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I have already been involved in closing unambiguous "keep" AfDs, and would certainly be willing to assist more in that area, especially as it seems to backlog somewhat at times. I would be happy to assist in monitoring WP:AIV and the backlogs which also can arise at CAT:CSD, looking through expired proposed deletions to either delete or remove the prod, and in monitoring WP:AN/I. I would also be willing to help monitor the 3RR noticeboard, as this seems to back up at times as well.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Rather than working with taking good articles to great ones, I try more to take articles in bad shape to decent quality. I have put in articles to cover a few gaps I came across in coverage, such as EA Spouse and Salt tectonics, and worked with the Bomb damage assessment article shortly after its creation. I've participated in various cleanup tasks across quite a few articles. I also noticed on the WP:WINF essay that we are short an article on beverage production, and am currently working on a draft. I also often try to properly tag or categorize articles which may need some work, so that other editors can find them and get involved. I have also done a significant amount of recent-change patrolling, and always make sure to properly warn or report the vandal.
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 Grandmasterka mentioned above, I was involved in a content dispute on the Jews for Jesus article, along with several other editors. Eventually, all editors involved agreed that mediation would be the best course, and the mediation was recently resolved to the satisfaction of everyone involved. I've found that most of the time, disagreements can be settled with a quick discussion and perhaps solicitation of a third opinion, so long as everyone involved is willing to act in good faith. The 3RR situation was a stressful one, and while the block was rescinded, I did learn not to let things get so close to that point. After that, I've generally held myself to reverting once at most and discussing thereafter, and found this to be a much more productive way to go about things. I don't generally get too stressed, the vast majority of editors here are reasonable people who are willing to work at things, and in the end, we're all working toward the same goal—creating a high-quality reference work.
Optional question from – Luna Santin (talk)
4. Good evening. :) Could you be so kind as to describe some circumstances in which it would be inappropriate to use your admin tools?
A: Generally, it would be inappropriate to use admin tools on an article one is involved in a content dispute on, against an editor during the course of a dispute with that editor, to close an AfD one has commented on, or in any other circumstances where it is clearly questionable whether the admin can make an unbiased judgment. In these circumstances, it would be better to bring the matter to the attention of other uninvolved administrators and leave the decision up to them. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 06:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. Pre-emptive nominator support. Grandmasterka 01:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support - Nice answers and your edits are spread about nicely. --양복42 02:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Strong support Last RfA should have passed. – riana_dzasta 02:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support. bibliomaniac15 02:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support I opposed last time but this user has improved greatly since then. Good luck. ~ Arjun 02:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support Goodness, this user looks like a great choice for an admin. Captain panda In vino veritas 02:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support. Seraphimblade has been an excellent editor these last few months, I have no trust concerns whatsoever. The answers given to the questions are also very good. Rje 02:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support. I have seen this user around many places doing many things.--Danaman5 02:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  9. You actually have 7931 edits, but it's more then enough for my support. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 02:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support Artaxiad 02:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  11. Yes. – Chacor 02:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support, absolutely! --Coredesat 03:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support, user is everywhere, great candidate. John Reaves (talk) 03:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support, highly qualified candidate, no concerns. Newyorkbrad 04:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  15. Jaranda wat's sup 04:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support. Michael 05:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support Of course. --210physicq (c) 05:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support Arfan (Talk) 05:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support without reservations. —dgiestc 06:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support -- Impressive experience in admin areas and policy discussions. Seems trustworthy for the tools. Luis1972 (Talk • My Contribs) 06:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support Your a good canidate. --Garfield the Cat 06:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support bargained well and done. I haven't worked too closely with this one, but if memory serves it has been pleasant on the occassions I've run across him. Has been around the block, appears well balanced, and I haven't yet found any terrifying skeletons in the closet. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support I've seen this user around, solid candidate. -SpuriousQ (talk) 11:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support. Sandstein 11:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support The editor has provided fair and neutral opinions when requested. Alan.ca 11:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support Terence Ong 11:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support - good candidate, can't find any problems. Insanephantom 12:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support skip (t / c) 12:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support fine candidate. - Anas Talk? 12:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support - A very well balanced Editor...--Cometstyles 12:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support from me; I've see this editor around enough to justify my vote. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 12:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support. Neil (not Proto ►) 12:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  34. Absolutely! Majorly (o rly?) 13:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support - I honestly thought he was an admin already. -- Nick t 14:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support, why not? Causesobad → (Talk) 14:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support Have seen good work and thoughtful opinions. GRBerry 15:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support - easy one, this. Moreschi Request a recording? 18:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  39. Support Because of the little things as well as the big ones. Pigmandialogue 18:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support - conduct and civility in the MedCom case, WP:RfM/Jews for Jesus (2), which I mediated with Seraphimblade as a party, was exemplary. During my mediation, Seraphimblade was an example to the others, and made a commendable and genuine effort to resolve the dispute, which most certainly paid its dividends. Even from the start of his WikiCareer, Seraphimblade displayed a calm head, and an unusually complete knowledge of policy. This positive experience with dispute resolution, combined with the necessary experience, most certainly goes towards eliminating any reasonable doubt over this editor abusing the mop. anthonycfc [talk] 18:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support per constructive involvement in notability guidelines and solid article editing. Addhoc 19:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support. Generally exhibits careful thought in his posts as well as consideration of the person to whom he responds. Seems to have gained good experience and knowledge by participating in many areas of Wikipedia. He should be given the mop to further help him with maintenance. -- Jreferee 20:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  43. Support Every time I've seen him around (which is often) he has been improving the encyclopedia in some way - and in a civil, helpful manner to boot. Should be a good admin. --TheOtherBob 20:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  44. Support - from the sunny shores of wikibreak. Khukri 21:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  45. Support: Good committment to the project and plenty of good deeds. Seraphim would be even better with a mop. TheronJ 21:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  46. Support Good candidate. Pascal.Tesson 22:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  47. Support although I don't always see eye to eye with Seraphimblade on notability, I have found him to be a courteous and intelligent participant in discussions.-- danntm T C 22:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  48. Support –Llama mantalkcontribs 22:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  49. Support Great recent change patroller, great contributor, shall do well with the extra tools - Myanw 23:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  50. Support He seems to be a fine contributor who we can trust with (and to use) the admin tools. Cbrown1023 talk 23:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  51. Support--Heywool 00:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  52. Support I believe he will handle the tools very well based on his recent changes patrolling and good involvement in Wikipedia space.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 01:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  53. Support Experienced, level-headed, a broad range of contributions... believe the tools would be put to good use. Shimeru 03:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  54. Support: Although the user was blocked, yet I think that he will use the administrative tools wisely. Good Luck! --Meno25 05:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  55. Support as I can't find anything to lead me to believe this editor would abuse the tools, and I can find a lot showing the tools would be effectively and correctly used. Twiddle his bit. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  56. Strong support. Excellent editor who will make a fine admin. I have seen this user doing extremely good work around the encyclopedia, most recently his assistance with reviewing numerous articles about behaviour modification institutions to remove extreme POV following an OTRS complaint. Tools definitely needed and I have no doubt they will be used well. WjBscribe 13:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  57. Support per nom and everything, but especially per answer to Luna Santin's optional question. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  58. Support I have seen him in action, He will be a good admin. -Mschel 15:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  59. Support - Adminship is overdue in this case. ◄Zahakiel► 16:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  60. 60 -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 16:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  61. Support. Yuser31415 19:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  62. Support evrik (talk) 20:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  63. Support --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 21:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  64. Support, pases criteria now.--Wizardman 03:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  65. Support I have seen him around and I have never seen anything which would give me pause. IrishGuy talk 04:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  66. Badlydrawnjeff's oppose is baseless. —Centrx→talk • 06:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  67. Support I think he does good work, and faintly surprised he was't already an admin. -- Donald Albury 11:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  68. Support. Engages in rational discussion, seems to have Wikipedia's best interests in mind... even if I've only been on the opposite side of discussion and disagree over precisely what those best interests are.--ragesoss 18:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  69. Support per nom and per Anthony_cfc. That MedCom was one of the very few succesful mediation attempts I've ever seen on Wikipedia and Seraphim's unrelenting calm and rationality seem to have gone a long way into that working. JoshuaZ 21:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  70. Support like last time. Heimstern Läufer 22:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  71. Support You're definitely getting my support. I have seen many good contributions from this user. James086Talk 07:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  72. Support. Agathoclea 09:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  73. Support. Though it's not like you need it! --Groggy Dice T | C 14:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  74. Support.--Húsönd 16:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  75. support --dario vet (talk) 16:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  76. Support - seen him around WP:AIV and WP:AN/I quite a bit. I feel he's trustworthy - Alison☺ 17:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  77. Support - another candidate I have seen around doing good work.--Kubigula (talk) 04:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  78. Support - per nom. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  79. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 11:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  80. Support a good candidate --Steve (Slf67) talk 22:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  81. Support per nom.--Grand Slam 7 | Talk 23:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  82. Support! —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-11 00:23Z
  83. Support thoughtful, civil, and posessing a good understanding of policy. IronGargoyle 05:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  84. Support. A level-headed and responsible editor and discussant. I feel confident that he would properly use his admin tools to the benefit of the project. -- Black Falcon 07:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  85. Issue the Mop Georgewilliamherbert 08:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  86. Support: Yes. --old man 10:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  87. Support: Looks good to me, however you could work that lost 1% of edit summary usage :D  ~Steptrip 18:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  88. Support Your edits look good, and they are well-rounded.. I think you'll make a great admin :) Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 20:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  89. I should have spotted this nom earlier. >Radiant< 14:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  90. Support. Give 'em a mop. -- MarcoTolo 21:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  91. Support - my previous interactions with Seraphimblade leave me feeling comfortable and trusting. - Richard Cavell 22:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose. Not currently comfortable with this user having the bit at all, currently. In a long-ranging dispute at the notability guidelines (WP:MUSIC, WP:N in particular), often misrepresented my positions on the matter, adding to a very contentious situation in the process, and I did not find his/her comments helpful in diffusing the situation as it were. Some more positive experience in conflict resolution would be necessary for my support in the future. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
    Do you have any diffs? They would be helpful if you can find them. Thanks, --A. B. (talk) 04:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Strong oppose Seraphimblade made an edit at the request of an anonymous editor. He made the edit apparently without wondering why the editor did not make it himself. I informed him privately that he was acting as the meatpuppet of a banned user. His reply revealed a serious ignorance of Wikipedia policies, and he added that "if someone approaches me with a concern, and it appears legitimate, I couldn't care less who they are." This is completely unacceptable in a candidate for admin.--Runcorn 23:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
    Note that the above admin has a tendency to harass and spite users who edit in a fashion he doesn't approve of. Though he claims to be aware of Wikipedia policy, the majority of his edits are often in violation of WP:NPOV. He sneakily reverts edits with fake edit summaries in order to return POV-pushing information and has severe bias-issues on most articles. He has yet to respond to inquiries of his "reverts on banned users" presented on his talk page. Interestingly, the admin reverts *to* versions of select banned users. Mostly it depends on their editing pattern. This "strong oppose" is just another example of his spite. SepharimBlade's response and actions were completely justified and fair given the circumstances. He is what true admin material should be. Since discrediting a user does not change the merit of their "oppose" or "support" declaration, I will only provide diffs of the statements above if anyone wants them. 141.213.210.80 00:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per Badlydrawnjeff.--Poetlister 17:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per Badlydrawnjeff.--R613vlu 22:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. I have a bad feeling here; I seem to remember you doing something bad, but I can't remember what it was. It would be really unfair to oppose for something unsubstantiated, so I'm going to be here. -Amarkov moo! 02:12, 7 March 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.