Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Seraphimblade

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Seraphimblade

Final (7/16/2); Ended 11:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Seraphimblade (talk · contribs) � Seraphimblade has a mature attitude. He has invested time in policy discussion and content improvement. I found his responses during his editor review to be well considered and well written. I appreciate that he has offered a third opinion to support and oppose my own point of view during times of dispute. Alan.ca 00:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept this nomination with my gratitude for Alan.ca's kind words. Seraphimblade 01:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I would be happy to answer any additional questions anyone may have of me, please ask away! Seraphimblade 01:05, 23 December 2006 (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 voters:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I would be happy to help with candidates for speedy deletion, as well as vandal reports and incident reports for more complex cases. I would also assist in closing articles for deletion requests, as well as CFD/MFD notices. I am also quite happy to assist with any other backlogs as the need should arise, and I am comfortable doing so.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Many such contributions are listed on my editor review. I have assisted in cleanup of the Google bomb and Fabolous articles, in my opinion to both articles' benefit. I have also done work on the Brine pools article, bringing it from an unreferenced single-sentence article to a workable stub, and created an article on Salt tectonics in the process. Both are stubs but will be improved, especially once I get a chance to get hold of some geographical and oceanographical texts, or alternatively may be improved by experts on the matter. (This is the beauty of Wikipedia!) I am also proud of my work to Bomb damage assessment soon after its creation. I have made many other contributions, including a large number of minor edits to correct grammar, spelling, and syntax errors. I am also quite proud of my work on newpage patrol, and have tagged a large number of inappropriate articles for speedy deletion. I believe that it speaks to my judgment in these matters that almost all of these articles have in fact been deleted. I have reverted a number of vandal edits, and have always ensured to warn the vandal or testing user. In all cases in which I have reported persistent vandalism, the vandal has indeed been blocked. I again feel this speaks to my judgment in such matters.
Furthermore, I am proud of my contributions to policy discussions. While of course such issues are always somewhat contentious, I believe such issues can generally be resolved to the satisfaction of everyone concerned.
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: Yes. In the Google bomb article, there was indeed a controversy over the inclusion of a section regarding Quixtar's Google bombing. A third opinion was requested, and after this was unsuccessful, the other editor and I underwent mediation. This process was ultimately successful in resolving the dispute amicably.
I was also involved in a controversy regarding the Jews for Jesus article. While some aspects of this conflict are unresolved, they are getting there, especially with the discovery of new source material. I am confident that these issues will be resolved to the satisfaction of all concerned.
I have been involved in other conflicts, and in general, these have been successfully resolved. I believe strongly in peaceful resolution and consensus, and while by definition these processes will not always please everyone involved, I believe that they are the best way to move forward. Seraphimblade 01:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Optional question from Yuser31415:

  • You had a large peak (over 1000) edits in November this year. Why? Yuser31415 07:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
A: I was doing quite a bit at that point! I imagine I haven't had as many at this time, between final exams and the regular Christmas season type stuff I've not been able to be around as much. I would imagine that as I get back into things, that it will approach that again. There were also several discussions I was participating actively in then, and which were going quite actively, such as the proposal to delete unsourced articles and several new notability proposals. Seraphimblade 07:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
General comments
  • I'm not sure how this will affect this RFA, but the nominator has just been blocked for 72 as a result of discussion on ANI.--Kchase T 06:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • To his credit he had helped me understand the situation. His neutral advice before and after the block is what motivates my support. Readers may want to note that my block was lifted within 10 minutes. Alan.ca 12:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't see that the nominator's block is remotely relevant. The candidate wasn't blocked.--Osidge 22:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • See his stats, courtesy of Interiot's Wannabe Kate tool, here. Yuser31415 07:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Support

  1. Support Beat the noms here! Great track record, keep up the great work.Ganfon 06:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. --dario vet ^_^ (talk) 09:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support Granted that, within reason, edit count is relevant, timing of contributions should not be. An all round satisfactory contribution satisfies me.--Anthony.bradbury 15:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support. Proto::► 16:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support: I feel this user will make a fine admin, even though the experience is a bit low. Heimstern Läufer 18:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support - adminship is not a big deal, to quote Jimbo Wales. Yuser31415 19:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support Looks OK to me.--Osidge 22:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

While your 3RR block was withdrawn, you really shouldn't have reverted to the point where you needed to self revert. And it wasn't even half a month ago, so I can't overlook it. -Amarkov blahedits 04:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, what the admin considered a "self-revert" was a move of a section, and was not actually the final revert. I can provide diffs if you'd like, but it was not actually a "revert" at all. Seraphimblade 04:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, you seem to be right. I'll review more, but no vote for now. You're back to 0/0/0, aren't you happy? :P -Amarkov blahedits 05:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
What you fail to mention is that the moving of the section was not just some minor administrative thing but was part of a series of edits designed to make the criticism of the organization look less mainstream. While this is obviously just a content dispute, it still constituted a revert. The first edit was also a reversion since it related to the same ongoing dispute, I feel that what made it even worse was the fact that you wikilawyered your way out of the block despite a violation of both the letter and the spirit of the policy.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  1. Oppose very weakly I might add. You seem to be an up and coming user but I think this RFA is a little early. Even though you have been with us a long time you only started editing heavily 3 months ago. Also this has the impression that you are coming here because you have just passed the 3,000 edit mark. Also the Wikipedia space is a little on the low side. — Seadog_MS 05:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Ral315 (talk) 10:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose too early, I'm sorry. I'm unfamiliar with your nominator as well, but noted that he was recently blocked for disruption, which raises too many question marks for me. Sorry. -- Samir धर्म 12:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. Recent block is of concern. I'd suggest withdrawing the RfA for that reason. Nephron  T|C 16:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
    That is a very unfair comment, and I would urge anyone else thinking to oppose based on that reason to reconsider. The block was mistaken, and was withdrawn (by the blocking admin) less than two hours later ([1]), as Seraphimblade had done nothing to deserve a block. Proto::► 17:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
    A block which was withdrawn by the same admin less than two hours afterwards. Perhaps you should supply those diffs, Seraphimblade, so it's easier for editors to understand the situation behind that block. Delta Tango * Talk 17:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
    I think you're probably correct, clearing that up just may help. This is the edit which was mistakenly considered a revert-the blocking admin thought that I had intended to remove the section entirely, when I had in fact only cut it to my clipboard, and pasted it back in under the "Criticism" section here, about five minutes later, after changing some wording. (The section never -had- been removed, and no one involved wanted to do that at all, but apparently a complete removal of a section would count automatically as a revert.) The blocking administrator saw it was clear from the edit summary and followup edit that I had never intended to remove the section permanently, and reversed the block. Seraphimblade 23:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
    It is very misleading to only point to that edit, when in fact the reversion was complex and was spread between the one you pointed out as well as this one [2] which came immedietly afterwards. It is fairly obvious that moving the section under criticism was just another reversion of the ongoing dispute. The fact that you have repeatedly pointed only to the first one makes me think that you only spread the reversion out over two edits because it would be easier to duck the consequences that way.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. Weak oppose per you just starting out. Try again in 3 months or so and you'll probably pass so long as you keep doing what you're doing. --Wizardman 18:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose due to limited time on the project. I do believe that experience matters along both axes (edit count or variations, but also tenure as a Wikipedian). | Mr. Darcy talk 18:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose Need more experience with mainspace. Shyam (T/C) 18:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose John254 20:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  9. Another weak oppose because I think 3000 edits and 2 months of active contribution are really not enough hands-on experience. Otherwise, no real concerns (the mistaken block appears to be a non-issue, see discussion), so keep up the good work. Sandstein 20:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  10. Weak oppose Not enough experience yet, but a great candidate otherwise. –The Great Llamasign here 23:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  11. Weak Oppose, Solid edit count for RfA, but needs to be here a little longer. Also, more mainspace edits. Maybe in a few months. VD64992 04:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
    note to crat:Editor joined on the 23rd of December 2006 and has 13 edits. — Arjun 04:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  12. Strong Oppose - crz crztalk 04:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  13. Strongest possible oppose This user chose to violate the 3RR despite being warned multiple times not to [3], and then left and angry and accusatory message on my talk page when he was reported [4]. He also had earlier attempted to state that he was allowed to violate the 3RR because there was consensus for his actions on the talk page, [5] (when in fact the majority of editors disagreed with his position, and in any case he would not have been exempt from the 3RR anyways). What makes the matter even more disturbing is the fact that he was able to wiggle his way of out a block by endless wikilawyering despite violating both the letter and the spirit of the policy.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose at this time. Would reconsider later with more experience and less controversy. - Mailer Diablo 07:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose. Needs to become more familiar with policy. Jayjg (talk) 08:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose - from examples above and from my own experience with this user, he gives priority to his opinion over WP policies. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral I've seen your name around at AfD; the reason for 'neutral' rather than 'support' is because your contributions have recently spiked upwards towards the numbers that I would like to see in preparation for RfA. I would withdraw this RfA and try again in March, having built up six months' worth of solid contributions, both in the article space and the policy/user space on admin-related tasks - vandal fighting/warning & reporting to WP:AIV; closing unanimous 'keep' XfD discussions; new page and recent change patrols, etc. (aeropagitica) 14:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
    I've run across you before as well, and have always valued your advice-so I hate not to take it this time! However, I think once I have the chance to answer some questions, I can do just fine, and if not, it will be a good learning experience! I do appreciate your advice however. Seraphimblade 00:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral leaning support I know from my own interactions with you that you can be a good contributor. However, you could use a little more time getting acclimated to wikipedia's norms.-- danntm T C 22:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral You have plenty of edits for sure, but just need spend a little bit longer in active editing. Will support in a couple months, if you remain consistent. Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail 06:21, 24 December 2006 (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.