Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Seresin

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

Contents 1 Seresin 1.1 Questions for the candidate 1.2 General comments 1.3 Discussion 1.3.1 Comment 1.3.1.1 Deletionist? 96% accuracy rate! 1.3.2 Support 1.3.3 Oppose 1.3.4 Neutral

[edit] Seresin

Final: (72/18/1); ended 07:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

co-nom Seresin (talk · contribs) - The other day I was checking out the admin coaching page looking for somebody who I thought might make a decent admin. I investigated several potential candidate, but one stood head and shoulders above all of the others. Seresin has been active with Wikipedia since April 2007, during which time he has made about 5,000 edits. One of the things that impressed me was the breadth of his contributions--particularly in the Wikipedia and Wikipedia Talk spaces (400/200 edits respectively.) He has voted in ArbCom (after asking some candidates questions.) He has received 4 barnstars from fellow wikipedians, 2 for anti-vandalism activities and 2 for inter-personal behavior. A few weeks ago, Anonymous Dissident referred to Seresin as "my fellow Wikipedian and hopefully one day admin, seem to know policy to the enth degree." This comment coming from Anonymous Dissident spoke volumes of Seresin's technical knowledge. I also reviewed a number of his edits and other comments, and my respect for him as an editor continued to grow. Seresin used to be known as User:I but recently changed his name. One of the things that I respect was that when some controversy arose related to single letter users, he listened to the criticism and modified his stance.

Generally, when a 17 year old seeks adminship, I am reluctant to support. But Seresin has shown a great deal of maturity especially when it comes to the tools. Seresin initially visited the AdminCoach page on August 13th, but nobody accepted him as a student. Rather than nominate himself or ask somebody who worked with him to nominate him, he waited patiently and developed his wiki knowledge. On December 1, he restated his desire to go through admin coaching. I offered to become his coach. I felt as if his willingness to wait was a clear sign of his maturity. Rather than rush the process, he wanted to wait until somebody else felt he was prepared for the tools. In the few days that I've worked with him he has done that. As his coach I asked him to EWS23's deletion exercises Seresin gave me some of the best answers I've seen. So I asked him 17 policy based questions ranging from topics such as Speedy Deletion, to name changes, to legal threats, to protection, and blocking. He gave me very well thought out and complete answers! Still not 100% convinced by his great answers, I reviewed 200+ of his edits, and those convinced me.

Having grilled coached him, I have zero doubt that he knows the policies (or at least how to find them) and will make an excellent admin! So I introduce you to Seresin.Balloonman (talk) 06:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Co-nomination by Sunny910910-This is my first RFA nomination so please bear with me.

I've known Seresin for a long time. I met him back when he was named "I", I had just reverted vandalism on one of the articles in Inheritance cycle and I went to warn the IP when I realized that Seresin had already done it for me. So I had thanked him, and during that time, he suggested that I try TW. Anyway, that's probably enough about how I met him. Out of all the non-admins that I've met, I believe that Seresin is the best suited for the job.

For one thing, he has a great comprehension and understanding of CSD. For example, this (now deleted) page had been requested for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G1 Seresin had looked over it and told the nominator that it was not nonsense (as you can see [[Computer prank#Joke programs|here]]) but still meets the CSD only as WP:CSD#A7 instead of WP:CSD#A1. Normally at this point I would provide a link, however, unfortunately all the evidence has been lost Seresin's talkpage archives.

I also see that Seresin has much needed patience and cool to deal with vandals, even in the face of personal attacks.

See this exchange: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. Not to mention that he has patience to deal with normal waiting, after he let me co-nom this RFA, he hasn't ever even mention it again (let alone ask me if it was finished yet) and especially hasn't shown any impatience.

Anyway I should be wrapping this up before this gets too long. Seresin is a good editor and I believe, if he's approved, he'll make a great admin.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)} 03:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you Balloonman and Sunny — seresin | wasn't he just...? 07:25, 7 February 2008 (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 have most of my administrator-related experience in deletion areas, such as speedy deletion and articles for deletion. I've also done some username work, and have reported a few usernames to usernames for administrator attention; I've also commented at request for comment on usernames when there are entries there. I would also deal with vandalism, for which I have received two barnstars. After I've gotten more experience as an administrator, I'll probably deal with other things, such as page protections or 3RR blocks. I also might update Did You Know? when it gets backlogged, which I often see on AN(I). I intend to start with areas I'm comfortable with, and then as I gain more experience work in other areas.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: The more extensive of my contributions are mostly minor fixes, such as copyediting. I also like creating redirects when they are useful. I recently discovered how much fun cleaning up and standardizing disambig pages can be. While not as important as some things, making Wikipedia look better and be easier to read is always a necessity. I enjoy making the project easier to read and more useful.

I recently created my first large, non-stub article, Parmigiani Fleurier, which I am very proud of. It's currently in the wheels of DYK, and will hopefully be on the mainpage in the nearish future.

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: Well, I try to make it a point to avoid the drama that sometimes plagues this place, and conflicts in general. As a result, I have not been in any major disputes. I believe that the majority of the little conflicts I have been involved in have been related to my opinion on what I consider makes something notable, especially fiction-related. A while back (July, I believe) I was involved in creating a (rejected) process to try to deal with the large amount of articles on individual episodes of television shows. An editor commented to me that my behavior in one of the discussions (specifically a TfD) was inappropriate. Upon assessing then, I didn't feel as if it was poor behavior. However, upon reassessing it now, with more wikiexperience, I can clearly see where my comments were out of line. I discussed with the user then, and have taken that conversation and the concerns raised and tried to be mindful of it in my interactions since then.

The other "major" dispute was a conversation with an editor after I notified him that he had a fair-use image on his page, and would he please remove it. He continued editing after I notified him, so I removed it myself. He took offense, and got upset. I defended myself against what I thought were some spurious accusations (including having an administrator sockpuppet). At the advice of another editor who commented in the discussion, I realized that it was time to end the discussion. In retrospect, I should have left the conversation sooner than I did, as the image had been removed and therefore the issue was resolved; there was no need to continue. This would probably be the largest conflict I've been involved in thus far.

As for stress, I haven't really had any. I am not a person who gets lots of stress, and conflicts with anonymous people online over something that is, in the grand scheme of things, often of little importance, do not cause me stress. As for future disputes, which, as implied by administrators' comments that I've seen, I will probably find myself invariably involved in, I intend to continue my policy of either avoidance, or disengaging as soon as possible. That said, I won't shy away from trying to resolving disputes, but I will try to avoid as much useless drama as possible while doing so.

Optional question from Master of Puppets

4. In your above answer you stated that you try to avoid drama and major conflicts. However, as an administrator, it would your duty to intervene in edit conflicts and other sorts of disputes between editors, which may sometimes get out of hand. How would you act if one of these came your way?

A: I'll assume your question is only about conflicts that aren't really useless wikidrama, because I don't intend to get involved in that if I can help it. But if I were to be involved in an editing dispute, I would do my best to get the parties to work together, and hopefully have the final result be one they can all live with, which means they won't conflict about it anymore and edit war, etc. I would also do my best to avoid any personal involvement on my side, because it's disputes where people get heated and emotionally involved that cause a lot of the drama I mentioned earlier, and bitter feelings. I would also disengage from the dispute as early as it would be possible, as to avoid situations I mentioned in Q3.

Optional question from DGG (talk)

5 How would you close AfDs where the consensus of responsible editors using policy based arguments is different from your own? For example, you stated that not every railroad station is notable" as your view. Suppose that in an AfD on one 5 good editors said they were on the basis of the usual arguments given in such cases, and 2 said that its time to change that practice. How would you close it? (I'm not concerned with that specific issue--I might even agree with you there, just what you would do in general) DGG (talk) 15:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

A: Well, I would probably not close it; I would most likely participate in the discussion, but I assume you wish to know if I did not participate. I'm not sure what you mean by "on one 5 good editors say they were on the basis of the usual arguments given in such cases". I'll presume for the purposes of my answer that the arguments were backed by policy; if this is not what you intended, please correct me. If there are a large number of editors supporting keeping the article, (based on notability grounds, as that seems to be the crux of your question) I would close as a keep, since although I might disagree with the opinions voiced, if they are backed by policy, there is consensus to close as a keep, and I would do as such. I wouldn't let my own opinions on an article's notability cloud following a consensus.

I also had trouble parsing that sentence. I think by "on one", DGG means "about a railroad station"; so if I'm right, DGG's sentence can be read as "Suppose that in an AfD about a railroad station article, 5 good editors said that every railroad station is notable on the basis of the usual arguments given in such cases, and 2 said that it's time to change that practice." In other words, none of the editors made arguments involving any specific characteristics of this particular railroad station -- only about railroad station articles in general. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I represented what such arguments usually say, & I wanted an evaluation of how to close a discussion based on that argument. Seresin answered the way i would have--either join the debate, let someone else close, or follow the apparent consensus if its strong enough, but not close the way you personally think the debate should have gone. A very similar question was asked of me at my RfA, of what I would do if I did not approve of the consensus at AfD.. I replied in a similar manner. DGG (talk) 20:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Optional question from BusterD

6. Have you ever faced repeated vandalism on your own user page, systematic harrassment, or stalking behaviors on-wiki or off-? That's becoming a larger issue, and for an admin (for a few more months) also a minor child, a serious concern for the pedia. If so how did you deal, and how would you deal differently as an admin? If not, try to imagine such a scenario, something personal or hurtful to you. How do you expect you'd deal with that situation as an admin?

My userpage has been vandalized before, yes. However, I don't believe I have ever been systemically harassed in any manner. If I were to experience serious harrassment, primarily off wiki, (knock on wood...) I would probably seek advice from another administrator who has been in that situation before. As for on-wiki harrassment (that isn't related to RL) I can't imagine it would be a particular problem. Just not feed the trolls, and if it gets bad enough, revert, block, ignore.

This question ought never to be optional IMO Optional question from Malleus Fatuorum

7. If promoted, would you make yourself open to recall? What would be your criteria?

Yes. I believe that adminstrators should be able to be held accountable for their actions. Administrators should not be in a cocoon totally above reproach. It should not be only gross violations and repeated patterns of misuse that result in a desysop. As someone whose name escapes me now said, an administrator should theoretically be able to pass another RfA at any time. An administrators' behavior and qualifications should not degenerate over time; it should at the very least remain at the level it was when he initally passed. In accordance with that belief, I would voluntarily have a steward remove my flag and restand at RfA if 5 adminstrators requested it. I restrict it to administrators in my parameters in order to guarantee that the people requesting my resignation are people who are established, know policy, and have been shown to have their judgement trusted. That is not to say that if several editors who were not adminstrators, but in good standing, requested I undergo another RfA in good faith, I wouldn't take their recommendation under serious advisement. It just wouldn't be objective criteria.

Optional question from DGG (talk)'

8 Considering the discussion below, perhaps you would decide on the arguments on one or two presently undecided and controverted Articles for Deletion. Please consider this as truly optional

A:In this AfD, I would close it, barring any further comments, as a keep. The article is verified, so there are no problems there. Notability seems to be the issue in this one. There are several sources that significantly discuss this term, and there are several editors who agree that the sources do indeed grant the term notability. I would close this way. If you'd like me to comment on others, please ask.

follow-up You've been accused of being a deletionist... thus, it is natural that you would post a "keeper" in response to DGG's question. Could you find a controversial/contested AfD that you would delete? Why?Balloonman (talk) 05:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Optional question from  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind infinity)'

9. What would your response be to: Wikipedia_talk:NPOV#Selection bias leading to NPOV violation?

[edit] General comments

• See Seresin's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Seresin: Seresin (talk · contribs · deleted · count · logs · block log · lu · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · search an, ani, cn, an3)

---

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

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Comment

• AfD is based on consensus. Voicing a point of view in a consensus discussion over an AfD is not an action. In the examples listed above, Seresin did not suggest speedy delete; Seresin voiced an opinion in a consensus discussion. If this editor becomes an admin, Seresin will still voice a point of view. That isn't an abuse of power. Kingturtle (talk) 11:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree, it should be acceptable for candidates to be more deletionist (or inclusionist) than the current version of the notability guideline. Addhoc (talk) 12:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Minor though it may seem, I'd personally like an assurance at this early stage from User:WJBscribe that he will not close this RfA, given his involvement. Pedro :  Chat  21:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I believe he is more than capable of deciding for himself when he should close an RfA and when he shouldn't. He hasn't done anything (that I've seen or heard about) to make me worry otherwise. ^Avruchtalk 23:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Well said, Avruch. I trust WJBscribe to act wisely and properly in this matter and I don't think it's necessary for WJBscribe to make any statement about it at this time. --Coppertwig (talk) 14:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why we need an assurance from WJBscribe that he won't close this RfA: from what I've come to understand, bureaucrats are not supposed to close RfAs they've participated significantly in. Of course, I may be wrong, so please correct me if I am. Acalamari 02:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It is common practice for bureaucrats to recuse themselves from RfD consensus activities that they've participated in. Kingturtle (talk) 04:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Are there examples of Seresin pushing for Speedy Deletion or are there only examples of Seresin's points-of-view expressed in consensus discussions in AfD? Kingturtle (talk) 23:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Opposes

I'll reply here as a broad response to the opposition as it stands, instead of to each individually, since they're a lot of the same theme. WjB is correct; I do not use bolded recommendations in any place if I can help it. I have done so since early November. We ostensibly don't vote on Wikipedia, so I see no need to add those tags when I can just as easily get my point across without them. Inferring that I have an aversion to even using the word keep is an extreme interpretation of that behavior, and seems to me to be assuming bad faith. The way I phrased my comments at the train station AfD were inappropriate, yes. I understand that I should not have written it so aggressively, and am mindful of the problems with uncivil comments, and am sorry. As for the other civility diff (the locomotive AfD), please note that I reverted it almost immediately after noticing my error, because I knew that it was inappropriate. I had tapped the enter key, and the paged saved accidentally, which is not that uncommon. Those two comments were also almost three months ago. If an editor feels there is a pattern of incivility, then I understand. But that was a isolated, long ago-incident, albeit a regrettable one, and I do not believe that the incivility has been repeated. As for PeaceNT's comment about lists, those diffs were from roughly four months ago as well. As for being deletionist, opposes based on that confuse me. I would understand if someone believed that because of my interpretation of this guideline, I would disregard this and this policy, and I don't see where one would derive such a conclusion. It seems to me as if many of the opposers are opposing merely because of my interpretation of the guideline. I think that it's rather unfair to believe that I will, based only the fact that I often support deletion of articles, misuse my tools and delete without regard to policy or consensus. Finally, I don't think characterizing my actions as "an incessant desire to delete" is fair. I don't routinely go out and seek articles to delete. I haven't nominated tons of articles for AfD, and delete comments voiced at ones already existing hardly support this; that's the purpose of AfD. I have supported keeping of articles, even fiction-related, so I also don't think that's a fair assessment of my edits. seresin | wasn't he just...? 07:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I find all the opposes per Deletionist quite disturbing. The views a user has are their right. Try opposing someone for being Christian, for example. --Jack Merridew 14:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Being Christian is a religious belief and would have no relevance in a Wikipedia based discussion; being deletionist however reflects an actual Wikipedia-specific philosophy and editors should be concerned if they believe an admin may be in a potential rush to diminish the encyclopedia. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It was just an example; would it be appropriate to oppose someone who was an inclusionist because one felt that unrestrained inclusionism diminishes the encyclopaedia by failing to re remove unencyclopaedic "articles"? --Jack Merridew 07:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. An editor who only votes keep but hardly does article work? That'd be just as an unhelpful as an editor who only votes delete and hardly does article work. The issue is (and this has been explained ad nauseam) competence at article work is a prerequisite for assessing what content needs to be deleted, what merged, what cleaned-up, what kept, etc. It is the same set of analytical skills. It is a fantasy that there are editors who are great at assessing what needs to be deleted, but not good at finding references/improving content. (I'm not saying Seresin is such an editor, but speaking of the general case.) I don't think a single person in the oppose section would support an "inclusionist" candidate who does no work, or very little work, on articles. Similarly, I think if a "deletionist" candidate had extensive article work under his belt he would not be getting these opposes. --JayHenry (t) 22:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me clarify a bit; I was referring to opposing such an editor for adminship based on being an inclusionist (as folks are opposing Seresin for being an (alleged) deletionist) when such an editor is otherwise qualified to be an admin. My concern here is one of barring folks from adminship for no other reason than their views. I certainly agree that an editor who only votes keep on every AfD they can find and does little else is not likely to be a good admin candidate. A much better criteria, as you point out, is a candidate's analytical skills. This is why I've supported Seresin's RfA. (Time to pile-on the supports, folks.) Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletionist? 96% accuracy rate!

Hasty deleter??? I just reviewed Seresin's !votes in AfD's since the start of the year and was very surprised about the results. Since January 1, I saw 26 AfD's that he has edited. Three of those AfD's he didn't voice an opinion (once he was fixing the format, the other asking a question, and the third time closing an AfD that had been speedily deleted.)Of his !votes: 1 he voted to merge. 8 he voted to redirect, 9 he voted to delete, and 5 he voted to keep. But the thing that surprised me the most is that of the AfD's that were closed, there is only one where his !vote was different from the final result. When he voted to delete, the article was deleted. If he suggested keeping it was kept. If he advocated redirecting or merging, with one exception, it was redirected or merged. That too me is pretty impressive. So 96% of the time, his position mirrored that of the consensus. How many of us can say the same thing about our !votes? But the biggest thing to note about his !votes is that he NEVER simply wrote "Keep"/"Delete"/"Redirect"/"Merge". He ALWAYS gives a rationale behind his position---often a 2-3 sentence rationale. That is much more than most people, myself included, do during AfD's. When he !voted to delete/redirect/keep he told you exactly why he took the position he did, there was never ambiguity. But 96% of the time his !vote was with the majority. (Note the one time it wasn't was a judgment call on the Admin's part it could have just as easily been a redirect---or kept due to lack of consensus!)Balloonman (talk) 22:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Balloonman, while being too eager to delete is a bad thing, most of those which he !voted "delete" for did meet the criteria to be deleted. I doubt that we would have to worry that Seresin would go around deleting everypage if he became an admin, in fact he might help clear the backlogs on XFD.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)} 03:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Eww. What a thought! :) Dlohcierekim Deleted? 04:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. I might have exaggerated too much.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)} 07:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

On Seresin's mainspace work

I'm still in oppose (as I write this...), but I would like to point out that I found Seresin's help invaluable in ultimately getting Age of Mythology featured. Just thought I'd get that out there. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 07:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

DYK update

As of today, Seresin did receive a Did you know? for Parmigiani Fleurier. Darkspots (talk) 21:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Support

1. Support as co-nom.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)} 05:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
2. Support as co-nom. Seresin is one of the most qualified people I've encountered!Balloonman (talk) 07:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
3. It was kind of Seresin to do this before we died, wasn't it... -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

   Change to strongest support: my talkings on msn have left me with only good feelings about potential, and I have seen that he is in fact very cautious when editing, and would prove underzealous with the tools, if anything. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

4. Support Great contributions! I'm liking the question answers, too, and a run through your contributions secured my support. Also adding in an optional question. Good luck! Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 07:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
5. Support 1) Good answers to the questions. 2) A sensible level of patience shown by going through coaching. 3) I saw like, maybe 1 C:CSD tag that was declined in two months, and plenty of nominations, so no concern on deletion policy. 4) This diff I particularly liked - shows a deeper understanding of guidelines than many IMHO. On a side note, I'd have supported anyway, but oppose number one is deeply disappointing and well out of line with current RfA "expectations". Pedro :  Chat  08:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
6. Strong Support Good Contributions and good Answers would be a good Administrator. Terra ^{Terra's talkpage} 08:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
7. Support I have seen nothing but good work coming from this user and believe he will make a great admin and I will be very annoyed if this rfa closes <insert high number here>/1/0 because of that stupid oppose below --Chris 09:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
8. Support — now that he has his username sorted ;-)  Seresin has the patience and calmness that I believe makes him a fine candidate for adminship. He has offered good advice when he thought it needed and I have no concern that he would run amok with the buttons. --Jack Merridew 09:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
9. Support, no valid reason to oppose. Stifle (talk) 10:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
10. Support although you're one of the few candidates whose name I don't recognize ^{(I wonder why?)} browsing through contributions turns up nothing but excellence. Pumpmeup 10:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
11. Support No problems here. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 12:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
12. Support - trustworthy editor. Addhoc (talk) 12:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
13. Support. Good user, will do fine with the tools. Malinaccier Public (talk) 13:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
14. Strong support. I have always had very positive interactions with Seresin. He is an intelligent capable and helpful users. I acknowledge the reluctance of those below based on the fact that his contributions to the mainspace aren't particularly strong but I do think it important that this project makes use of contributors according to their skills and interests. Some may not be great content writers but can help out with more administrative tasks. I think Seresin has enough mainspace involvement to know what goes on there and he has plenty of experience of areas where admin tools are needed. WjBscribe 13:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
15. Support. Good contribs. Seems unflappable. --PTR (talk) 14:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
16. Support, a good user (and partly to counter some of the most stupid opposes I've ever seen). Majorly (talk) 14:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
17. Support per nom. User:Dorftrottel 18:19, February 8, 2008 [Per Casliber, I sorta kinda feel like the opposition does not make very convincing points. User:Dorftrottel 14:57, February 7, 2008]

    Note. Further comment moved to talkpage. WjBscribe 18:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

18. Support. He meets all my standards. While I understand the concern about his lack of experience with settling disputes, yet he is from a city filled with very nice people of various cultures who live together faily peacefully. If promoted, which I think he will be, I urge him to go back to school. Bearian (talk) 15:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
19. Support as per all of the previous comments. Seems to really want to help out in the community. I say that we give him that chance. Razorflame (talk) 16:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
20. per pedro and dorftrottel (switch to strong see below)_ & meets my standards. While I see where some of the opposes are coming from, I believe that these faults are fixable and that if nom exercises a bit of caution regarding these concerns will do fine. Cheers, :) dlohcierekim's other account 17:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikereichold (talk • contribs)

    Just gotta say it. Kabura's oppose just does not seem like a very good argument. It goes against the well established precedent that adminship requires on the order of 3-6 months of experience. A reasonably intelligent user, when encountering uncertainty or an unfamiliar situation will seek the advice of others, go slow, etc. One does not see everything in 3 months or even two years. In most cases, it does not take a lot of experience to know that an article that states, "I think my boyfriend/girlfriend/best friend/school/whatever is great/stinks/is gay/whatever needs to be speedily deleted. Nor does it require much on the ball to know to block the user that insists upon adding such rubbish to our encyclopedia. In the end, adminship still ain't that big a deal. If the nom has any uncertainty he can ask first and delete/protect/block later.Mikereichold aka Cheers, :) dlohcierekim's other account 17:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

    "Holy Bat Rant" I supported per Dorf before he went all caps. Per Dortrottel HERE. Cheers, :) dlohcierekim's other account 18:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

    Yeah sorry. To my defense, that happened before the overdue invention of the WP:Screambox. User:Dorftrottel 08:40, February 8, 2008

    Commnet As with some other opposes, Darkspots oppose is based on dif's from late November. I believe sufficient time has passed for the nominee to have learned from pass events. However, I'm not certain how much merit his oppose rationale carries anyway. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 15:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

    Much better. Thank you. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 15:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

    { No. Now I'm being counted twice)Switch to strong support per some very solid arguments, particularly, Coppertwig. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 03:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

21. Support. So "I", or "Soleil" or whatever he's calling himself has made a couple of silly comments. Who hasn't (including many opposers below I might add). He is obviously dedicated to this project, obviously has a CLUE. Remember when a Request for Bureaucratship looked like this?. I don't. I haven't been here long enough and so I'm apparently not worthy of the silly buttons granted me after a mere 4 months and 3000 edits. But I've done some digging back a couple of years for the benefit of others that may have thought, as I did, that this is what an RfA was supposed to be. Geesh. We seem to have gotten a little carried away here. You have my support, Seresin. Happy editing, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
22. Weak support. You have made some rather uncivil comments, pointed out below, and I do hope you don't act like that if and when you get the mop. As for my support, you pass level 2 of my criteria. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{round of applause} 21:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
23. Support Frankly, I don't see any reason why this RfA should have become such a train wreck. ^Avruchtalk 23:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
24. Support - He does have some judgmental issues, as mentioned by the opposes below, but I believe that this candidate would use the admin tools well. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 23:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
25. Support, comes very highly recommended, and the minor (IMO) issues in the oppose section don't bother me. · AndonicO ^Hail! 00:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
26. Support Have no problem with him receiving the mop. Earthbendingmaster 00:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
27. Support per above. And the concerns in the oppose sections regarding AfD concerns are really concerns from last November, about three months ago. NHRHS2010 01:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
28. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Although I do not share what appear to be the candidate's somewhat deletionist inclinations, I do not find his positions so outlandish as to bar a dedicated contributor from adminship. I have carefully reviewed the opposers' concerns and find them unpersuasive, and in several cases, wholly without substance. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
29. Strong support, the "strong" part on account of the opposing opinions. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 03:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
30. Support, some of the contributors deletion rationales have been a bit wacky, but they're not so crazy that they're way outside of policy or anything. I'm satisfied that Seresin will be able to use the tools responsibly. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 08:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC).
31. Support I like what I have seen so far. docboat (talk) 12:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
32. I was concerned over the multiple name changes and was likely to be neutral in this RfA for that, but after a review of the opposition and seeing their reasons...there are some legitimate issues for not supporting but most seem either borderline (at the worst) or just silly. I feel more comfortable supporting instead. Acalamari 17:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
33. Support I thought for a few minutes about this one. I am convinced that Seresin's knowledge of policy is above average for new admins. I really, really hope that he won't delete any articles that shouldn't be deleted. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
34. Strong Support Seresin knows policy and guidelines extremely well, he is a conscientious editor who makes reasoned and rational decisions. I can understand why some are opposing him, though I don't agree with their arguments. I believe that this editor would be an honourable and fair administrator, and that's good enough for me. RMHED (talk) 19:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
35. Support per no apparent problems, and also some of the oppose rationales below. Black Kite 20:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
36. Support. Ample experience IMO, notwithstanding some opposes below which seem to fly in the face of precedent set by many recent RfAs. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
37. Support The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
38. Support per nom. Another great example of one person saying something and all of a sudden they are a deletionist. ---CWY2190^TC 02:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
39. Support — opposes are insufficient to deny adminship. --Haemo (talk) 02:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
40. Support Gut feeling, and see oppose section. Spencer^T♦C 02:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
41. Support, seems to be an excellent candidate. Dreadstar † 05:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
42. Support as co-nom. I believe Seresin will work hard and carefully. I speak here as an inclusionist who will *not* oppose someone suspected of being a deletionist. I am not looking for admins who are exactly like me. Different points of view benefit consensuses. Kingturtle (talk) 07:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
43. Per above, although I ask Dorftrottel to carefully review his conduct on this RfA as it is neither helpful or acceptable behavior. — DarkFalls ^talk 08:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

    I know, and I have. However, the point buried beneath my ranting is a valid one. (And besides, I've done far worse in several other RfAs where I felt people were opposing for invalid or comparably minor reasons. You see, once a candidate is "opposable", there is a tendency that people will flock to the oppose section, because... I don't know... because they apparently like to oppose. It's fair I believe to say some are admin exclusionists, and I'm not and Seresin's achievements as an editor far outweigh any (more or less valid) concerns, and ironically enough I sometimes forget to observe AGF because I have a zero-tolerance policy on AGF when it comes to opposing candidates. Either there are valid concerns or not, and when in doubt, people should give their nod. I'm pretty sure Seresin is taking the criticism at face value and will act accordingly cautious when closing any XfDs, but this is not editor's review. When people have had problems with his judgment, I wonder why they didn't address those at his talk page much earlier, in an actual effort to sort it out.) User:Dorftrottel 11:51, February 9, 2008

44. Support This user is clearly exceptionally well qualified. This RfA contains, so far, nineteen deleted comments, which is a record since I have been here. Only 21 months, of course, with ten as admin! --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 16:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
45. Support. I'm very positively impressed by a look over some of the candidate's contribs: I see helpfulness, courtesy, knowledge and ability: a high concentration of the types of edits I'd expect an admin to do occasionally. Edits I like include updating the Oversight page; finding an apparently missing user; the edit summary "Alter per wonderfully collaborative discussion on talk"; expanding a redirect to a disambig;awarding a barnstar; and a very proper action on an earlier version of this RfA. Unlike with many other RfA candidates whose contribs I've looked through, I found zero edits worthy of critical mention here. (paragraph break) I also support per no-nonsense: that is, according to Sunny910910 above on this page, I told someone that an article marked with a CSD tag was not nonsense. That is, "I" did that. That is, the candidate did that. :-) I – that is, I, Coppertwig – support the careful use of the "nonsense" criterion, see it being over-used and generally support actions pointing out that articles tagged as nonsense are not nonsense. (paragraph break) The reasons given in the oppose votes seem either trivial, not good reasons or unfounded. I see no evidence that the candidate is any more deletionist than the average user; and being deletionist is in itself not a reason to oppose. The only relevance of deletionism/inclusionism is that if a candidate happens to be inclusionist, it can lessen (though not eliminate) any concerns that might be present that the candidate might allow personal opinion to override consensus when using delete buttons. That's irrelevant here. In this case, I see no reason for concern that the candidate might allow personal opinion to override consensus or policy. The candidate's statements on this page, combined with the high quality I've seen in the candidate's contribs, are such as to inspire my trust in that regard. --Coppertwig (talk) 17:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
46. Support Per looking at user's contribs and also per Majorly. Garion96 (talk) 17:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
47. Support I've seen Seresin around on WP:CHU, WP:CHU/U and a few other places in the project space, and I've always thought he was an admin (until I got that cyan-admin-highlighter script and was pleasantly surprised). No concerns from me. Also per Newyorkbrad and Majorly, some of the oppose votes don't seem particularly concerning to me personally. XENON54 | talk 21:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
48. Support per Newyorkbrad as well. I see no evidence whatsoever that this person would abuse the admin tools. — Satori Son 22:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
49. Support I see no glaring problems here. The oppose votes are a little silly, to be honest. GlassCobra 23:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

    I hope you (and others here who say "support per oppose section") respect other peoples point of view. To explain why ones gut feeling not is in favor of a user may be hard. This does not necessarily mean the judgement is lacking. Greswik (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

    I am not supporting "per the oppose section," as you put it. I am supporting because this user has shown commitment and dedication to the project, and because the net gain of giving him the mop would be positive. His positive work outweighs any small trifle being cited in the oppose section. GlassCobra 18:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

50. Support per solid contribs and mature approach to this proceeding. BusterD (talk) 00:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
51. Support No serious problems. Epbr123 (talk) 01:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
52. Support Patient, thoughtful user who has done a lot of good work. Kafka Liz (talk) 16:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
53. Support - I have no problems. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 16:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
54. Support per my own recall criteria. See Malleus Fatuarum's oppose below. -- Y not? 16:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
55. Strong support. Why not? No, seriously; I don't see any good reason to oppose -- I disagree with every one of the "oppose" opinions below. In fact, this user's stated disdain for "wikidrama" makes my "support" a "strong support". Just Say No To Wikidrama! --Ginkgo100^talk 22:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
56. Slightly weak, but per Coppertwig and Age of Mythology (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Daniel (talk) 01:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
57. Support Good answers to the questions, the oppose opinions aren't convincing to me.--Fabrictramp (talk) 15:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
58. Support The stupid reasons in the oppose section are enough for my support. Adding to that fact, I like his answers and his contrib history, I think he'll make a fine admin. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
59. Support No one's perfect. I still do not think that he will abuse the tools. нмŵוτнτ 01:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
60. Support - Looks like a good user, opposes do not raise real concerns. WP:AGF. Tiptoety ^talk 18:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
61. Why the hell not? Ral315 (talk) 18:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

    Indeed. Says it all. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 19:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

62. I wish Seresin engaged in more mainspace work. I believe his judgment would benefit from it. (I believe everyone's judgment benefits from doing the content work that is our flesh and blood.) I really wish the bureaucrats or... someone... had done something more about the grotesque incivility from the support section. The editors in opposition are some of Wikipedia's best, and they do not deserve this appalling and truly despicable treatment. The true victim of the incivility has been Seresin. Had someone engaged the opposers in respectful discussion, many of them might have changed their minds as they are intelligent and reasonable editors, but do prefer to be treated like human beings. On balance I'm not convinced that his judgment is poor though and I think he's unlikely to be a bad admin. --JayHenry (t) 19:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
63. Agree with JayHenry above re mainspace, and to a degree with CharlotteWebb below on notability, but Seresin seems unlikely to delete the main page by mistake - or even just to see what happens - so I think he merits my support, especially given some of the poor oppose rationales advanced here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
64. Support Some of the opposes are well, tenuous. Admins need to judge consensus. Ballonman's analysis of the candidates AFD contrubution suggest they get is right 90something% of the time. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
65. Support. I have seen this editor in action and think he'd make a good admin. Deletionist/inclusionist stance is beside the point in deciding whether he'd make a good admin or not; he has shown good judgement by stating that his own opinion would not affect his actions as an admin. There are enough good contributions behind his name to believe him when he says that. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 00:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
66. Support a trustworthy editor who understands what an encyclopedia (as opposed to a blog) actually is and shows good judgment. Gwernol 01:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
67. Support I do think the opposers bring up some valid points, but none of them is that big. Yes, it's important to respond to good faith posts to your talk page, but a look through his talk page archives shows that he almost always does respond helpfully and civilly, I was very impressed. The all caps comments in the AFD were unfortunate, but again, this was one instance, a while ago. We should be looking at patterns, not single instances (admittedly, if the single instances start to stack up, there's a problem. And of course, some things are deal-breakers no matter how infrequently they happen). Otherwise the community becomes an unforgiving place. If you can work really hard and do a great job but then one or two minor slipups costs you your reputation, who would find it worth sticking around? I think we owe it to the candidate to take a more thorough look. I took one, and I was pleased. delldot talk 22:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
68. Support Obviously dedicated to Wikipedia work and seems to be mature and trustworthy. Wexcan  Talk  23:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
69. Support per nom Alexfusco⁵ 02:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
70. Support - A Dedicated User. I don't see the maturity issues listed below as being of great concern. Quality is always better than Quantity. PookeyMaster (talk) 03:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
71. Support - A reliable XfD participant and worthy of additional tools. Being a deletionist is just a label and it's really not relevant - a deletionist can know a keep - that's the point of closing cases in which one is neutral; in at least one case he says he wouldn't close because he'd participate, that's the answer we need to hear. If an editor is interested enough in the outcome to care he or she should be in the discussion. This editor is active enough in XfDs that if not involved in the discussion you can pretty well judge that neutrality is present. Unless the opposition can show that the candidate would misread consensus and delete where one ought to keep, the label deletionist should be ignored. And although it's no recommendation at all, the fact remains that this is 'no big deal'.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 03:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
72. Support. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 04:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

1. Oppose - I haven't seen his contributions, so my criticism isn't pointed into that direction. He's active on en.wiki since 3 March 2007, that means, less than a year (10 months and few days. He's not experienced enough. Since en.wiki is the biggest Wikipedia, we cannot allow ourselves such luxury. I don't say that Seresin is not good, I just want to say that he doesn't know what traps await him. With 2 years on en.wiki, with few experiences on heated things, he'll be a wiki-veteran that 'll recognize things. However, than we'll have to look at quality of his contributions. Kubura (talk) 07:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

   I oppose this oppose, and with vehemence. 10 months is considered by most a long period of time, and by far enough for a candidate to be an admin. And to disregard his contributions like this, and look purely at his length of time here, really gets my goat. Sorry. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

   Please also consider my health. I would likely have died if he waited much longer on this RFA, and I expect I would no longer be around if he waited 2 years. "Death by impatience" - how undashing... -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

   Hi, Dissident. You're here for 13 months. Believe me, you'll learn a lot in the next 11 months. En.wiki has a big userbase to pick from, we have enough experienced users that are over 2 years regularly here. Seresin 'll belong there once. "Considered by most"? What does that mean? Who counted that? And have you asked experienced users, those with over 2 years on en.wiki? Kubura (talk) 08:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

   I'm sorry to name names, but User:WJBscribe, who is a bureaucrat, joined Wikipedia in November of 2006, thus failing your criteria for adminship despite a RfB that passed at 172/3/1. I respect your right to an arbitrary standard Kubura, but when that standard is so far outside of general community consensus perhaps you may wish to reconsider you stance. Best. Pedro :  Chat  08:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

   Wrong on several counts. The most important being that your statement is only true when "community consensus" is reworded to include "those who vote at these things". Of those who hardly ever do, which is the vast majority, the more common sentiment is "RfA is broken". That being said, asking for more experience seems like a perfectly reasonable suggestion, and something that several people I know would agree with. Sadly, they don't vote except in exceptional circumstances. The last time I came here I noticed half a dozen candidates who hadn't written any major articles or demonstrated any ability to stay cool in a dispute - because they'd avoided disputes. Those people, when elected by this strange 'consensus' that gathers here, are precisely the people who cause the rest of us to grumble that RfA is broken. 10:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Relata refero (talk • contribs)

   Well, I bow to the user who has been here for nine whole days, and in that time seems to have participated in some incredibly contentious debates as well as demonstrating a remarkable level of understanding of Wikipedia. To be honest the ability of an editor to show such levels of knowledge about this place, in such a short time, partly undermines Kubura's arguments that one needs two years experience. You seem to have picked it up in next to no time. Pedro :  Chat  10:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC) strike that - I was looking at another users contrib history, and apologies. Pedro :  Chat  10:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

   No problem, and thanks for the compliments to my understanding! :) Relata refero (talk) 10:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

   OK. Community doesn't have so high criteria as me, and I'll be overvoted. I gave my opinion and vote, you gave your opinions and votes, and that's it. End of story. Simple as that. Kubura (talk) 09:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

   Okay... care to ask a steward to desysop the 800 or so admins that hasn't been here for 2 years? — DarkFalls ^talk 08:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

   I think that there was a discussion about that on Wikipedia project (recently), however I haven't been thinking about that, nor intending to give my opinion about that. Kubura (talk) 09:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

   I'd also like to see all of the contributions of people who aren't wearing a purple jumper with Globe shoes oversighted, if that's possible...? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

   Dissident. Please, stay serious. Kubura (talk) 09:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

   Buru. Please, stop trolling. Majorly (talk) 13:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

   As pointed out by several people here and at AN/I, this criterion is perfectly valid. Given that, I suggest you retract your accusation. Trolling is a word thrown out a little too often here these days. Relata refero (talk) 13:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

   It is not valid. If you don't like me criticising stupid criteria, don't oppose with it. Simple as that. Majorly (talk) 13:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

   THey're not my criteria, but they're as intelligent as a lot of others I've seen. And my objection wasn't to your criticism - which I didnt see - but your use of the word trolling. Which was unwarranted. Relata refero (talk) 14:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

   You haven't seen much then. And it was warranted. Majorly (talk) 14:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

   I was around when they invented RfA, so I've seen enough. And if you think that it was warranted, you had better deal with the several people who indicated that that user had a perfect right to his opinion. Your use of the word, now, that was provocative. Relata refero (talk) 14:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

   "07:14, October 11, 2007" was your first edit date. Don't lie to back up your opinions. — DarkFalls ^talk 04:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC) Confusion of accounts, sorry. — DarkFalls ^talk 11:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

   What kind of feeble-minded aggression is that? Don't run around accusing people of lying, please. It's perfectly obvious from a glance at this accounts first 50 edits that it was a new account of an experienced user. Wow. ABF, much? Struck out following chat on IRC. Relata refero (talk) 11:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

   Wow... I've been here less than a year, and I've been an admin for over 4 months! I even had a majority of support when I ran after only 2 months. I respect your right to voice your opinion, but I feel that your views do not parallel those of the community as a whole. нмŵוτнτ 01:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

2. Oppose this and this lead me to think you have trouble using the word 'keep', combined with using caps lock inappropriately and this..I dunno how to categorise that one, but combined with a lack of mainspace edits makes me worry about hasty deletions and civility issues when not on best behaviour for RfA. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

   Note that the 4th link given above was self-reverted 8 minutes later by the candidate with "Ack. Did not mean to save that.". Apparently the candidate had never intentionally posted it but had accidentally hit the "enter" key while in the edit summary box. (See comments by candidate further above in this RfA.) --Coppertwig (talk) 15:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

   Your rationale confuses me. Both of the AfD's you pointed out are "keepers" granted he didn't write the word "keep" but he was not endorsing deletion---so how do these make you think that he will be prone to hasty deletions? Balloonman (talk) 09:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

   I was noting that when he notes that an article should be kept, use of the actual word is avoided, reminding me of the various sit-com gags where a commitment-phobic person is unable to say the l-word (i.e. love). That in of itself is not a huge concern, but when I note that with an overall deletion-take at AfD, and lack of article writing experience, and some somewhat inopportune comments, it tips it into the negative for me whether this person will be a net positive as a sysop. Wouldn't take much to get in the 'black' - a successful Good Article shows mainspace and ability to work collaboratively to me well.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

   Casliber, I hope you'll look again at this candidate and reconsider your opinion here. There is no need in AfD discussion to use and bold the words "keep" or "delete" - indeed doing so is what misleads some into thinking the process is a vote. The closing admin would clearly in those two cases understand that Seresin advocated that the articles should be kept. I think you're making a lot out of the fact the word wasn't used - you seem to assume this conceals a phobic aversion to keeping articles, which seems to me a fairly extreme conclusion, could he not be given the benefit of the doubt? WjBscribe 14:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

   I'll happily support once I see some good mainspace contribs. I'll even help him write some. As I said, each bit in of itself I'd ignore, but taken all together I have my reservations. Jayhenry pointed out the name changes as well, which I also thought was odd. Unfortunately alot of this poils down to making predictions on future conduct, which is what we're all doing now, and I have yet to be convinced. I'm sorry but relaying apprporiate answers when under the spotlight with a keyboard is not a strong positive for me.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

   Hey Casliber, AfD is a discussion last time I checked. Do you think it is appropriate to encourage (read: force, in the context of opposing their RfA) other users to treat AfD like a vote rather than a discussion, where the most important word (for you) is keep/delete. What's next? Will you oppose someone for not writing support/oppose in an RfA? User:Dorftrottel 14:55, February 7, 2008

   Rather deletionist, and seems to misunderstand commons precedent. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 09:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC) - I'm going to neutral on this one. I agree too much with Mr. Parham's comments below to support now, but I initially wanted too, and I've been convinced by the arguments in the discussion section (see also my comments re: mainspace there). If this doesn't go through, and if Seresin utilises WP:SCREAM, I'll be supporting next time, I hope. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 07:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

   OK, I'm willing to risk looking ill-informed... What is "commons precedent"? Also, I think it only fair to note that Seresin withdrew that comment a few seconds after making it [8]. WjBscribe 17:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

   Sorry about that typo (and I can see how it could be misinterpreted). I meant common precedent, as in, what's generally done (we generally notify projects, etc.). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 00:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

   Ah OK - makes sense. I would suggest that his immediate withdrawal of the comment meant he did understand the common practice, and was just making a snarky remark. Not that those are helpful either.. :-) WjBscribe 01:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

   Yes, withdrawing the comments is the right way forward. Still, concerns about deletionism (and per Cas), and I also agree with Mr. Parham below. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 08:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

3. Sorry. User seems too keen on deleting stuff, and apparently has something against "list" articles. Votes beginning with I hate lists like these or ' o.O That's a very indiscriminate list are quite unsatisfactory. This shows that user doesn't understand the concept of "minor" in fiction articles. I'm also concerned about the diffs cited above by Casliber and Dihydrogen Monoxide. Particularly, I'd respectfully request that user Seresin avoid WRITING ALL IN CAPS because it looked like he was shouting at other editors, which is not at all helpful conduct in AfD discussions. Sorry. --PeaceNT (talk) 10:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

   Writing in caps is NEVER HELPFUL, even outside of AfD. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 10:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

   Yes, it can be very helpful to release </anger>. Besides, I for one find <quote>NOT EVERY TRAIN STATION, BUS ROUTE AND AIRPORT TERMINAL IS NOTABLE!!!!!! </anger></quote> to be very agreeable, just as this comment. But maybe that's because I'm not an indiscriminate inclusionist. User:Dorftrottel 15:08, February 7, 2008

   I do wonder how many AN/I threads and ArbCom cases we need before we, as a community, realize that releasing one's anger into discussions isn't helping us improve this encyclopedia. An explosion of anger might help an angry person cool off; it has been demonstrated a rather exhaustive number of times that it doesn't help Wikipedia get better. --JayHenry (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

   I'd argue there's a big difference between discussing in an angry way and cursing a bit in order to cool off before making a constructive comment. That said, many many many many many things said in talk pages are completely useless for the project. A comment like "<bangs head on keyboard>" is essentially the same, and nobody would seriously oppose for that. People who are too easily offended are the far bigger problem, with their constant bickering about civility. The important thing is to PLAY FROM YOUR FUCKING HEART, not that ugly clean-cut, inwards-looking narcissism. User:Dorftrottel 17:37, February 7, 2008

   While I do not believe you provide a compelling reason to support this user's RfA, I do agree with you that comments like "<bangs head on keyboard>" really do not add anything to discussions. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

   ... All the arguments to support are included in the nomination statements. I simply happen to agree with them. It's on you to provide a sufficient reasoning to explain why and inhowfar you are not agreeing with it. OTOH, what can be expected from someone who makes a habit out of insisting on keep votes in AfDs, no matter how many compellingly logical, policy-based arguments have been presented and who now comes here to oppose someone's RfA with a similarly insufficient rationale? It's a sad joke. User:Dorftrottel 08:51, February 8, 2008

   Your only "reason" so far for wanting to support seems to be because you want another editor whom you believe will counter those you designate "inclusionists". Your tactic in this discussion as is the case in many AfDs is to in effect attack and assume bad faith against fellow editors, which only appears pointy and adds to Wikidrama. Instead of being about the article under discussion, it becomes about the editors whose side you disagree with. Instead of being about the admin candidate, it becomes about those you disagree with. Please do not get sidetracked. Why is it so difficult to work to improve articles and to discuss with editors in a civil fashion? Finally, for the record, I am perfectly willing and have voted to delete many an article as I did most recently here. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

   It makes perfect sense that he might need to cool off, but why would he edit a remark like that into Wikipedia for others to read? One would hope that administrators would be experienced enough not to make a permanent record of every angry thought that crosses their mind. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

   Ok, maybe it's me. I just don't see why it's such a big deal. The constant need to censor yourself kills common-sense in discussions and opens the way for perfectly civil system-gamers, imho. User:Dorftrottel 08:55, February 8, 2008

   "That's a very indiscriminate list" seems to me to be a perfectly valid comment, being simply a reference to the need for specific inclusion criteria for a list. --Coppertwig (talk) 20:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

4. Oppose Just a bit overanxious to delete it seems. I dunno... Jmlk17 12:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
5. Oppose. Limited commitment to building the encyclopedia. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
6. Strong oppose, too enthusiastic to spend time getting something deleted than writing it. Sorry, but never. @pple complain 15:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

   Never?!? WjBscribe 15:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

7. Oppose I agree with the above. Not enough effort displayed to improve articles and too much effort to destroy them. Seems to make weak arguments in AfDs and in the Episode and Characters Case. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

   Would you mind showing me a weak argument I have made? seresin | wasn't he just...? 07:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

   For example, saying "no one will search for the character with the (Family Guy) appendage" is not logical when at least one person created the article, which means that "some one" would indeed conduct such a search and so at a minimum a redirect would indeed be worthwhile. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 14:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

   Splitting hairs like that is not going to help your specially flavoured reasoning. Why not just stop arguing for a change and simply admit that you have no arguments going for you and that you came here only because you are an indiscriminate inclusionist? You do not have any valid concerns. Your only concern is that the candidate is not an indiscriminate inclusionist. Ridiculous. User:Dorftrottel 14:42, February 8, 2008

   Be civil Kingturtle (talk) 14:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

   Well, to clarify further, I found this edit also a bit distressing, because Twinkle, an anti-vandalism tool, should be used to fight vandalism, not for AfDs (i.e. discussions for articles that do not fall under the speedy requirements, but that members of the community are likely to disagree about much more rigorously), which require a bit more serious consideration rather than the quickest or easiest way to nominate them. I do think that Seresin has some merits in fighting vandalism (such as these praiseworthy reverts: [9], [10], etc. and I absolutely commend his edits in that regard) although one doesn't need to be an admin to fight vandalism. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

   Your view of the appropriate uses of Twinkle is off; see Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Twinkle/doc#AfD Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

   The problem is that some abuse it to mass nominate articles for deletion and wind up flooding those discussions. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

   As long as there's Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting, the only ones to flood the discussion with votes will continue to be the no-holds-barred inclusionists. User:Dorftrottel 17:41, February 9, 2008

   What actually happens is that the handful of editors who misuse Twinkle in such a fashion and whose contributions are almost entirely nominations for deletions and few if any "keep" votes or mainspace improvements all seem to rapidly appear in each other's AfDs, while those who do occasionally vote "keep" spend much more time on other aspects. Imagine if an inclusionist claimed it was his or her "mission" to do nothing more than keep articles! Aside from the fact that Wikipedia is not a crusade... I consider myself a relatively strong inclusionist, but even I "vote" to delete articles more than just in a few token instances (such as I did here, here, here, and here). I've seen others labelled inclusionist vote delete on many occasions as well. Many of those who criticize myself and other inclusionists rarely (and some never) seem to ever vote to keep anything. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

   In my humble opinion, you're once again mistaken on all accounts and on all involved semantic levels, but I think we'd better continue this at user talk. User:Dorftrottel 18:26, February 9, 2008

   In any event, this discussion really should stay focused on the candidate and not become a broader inclusionist versus deletionist discussion. I may not think Seresin should be an admin at this time, but I do think it unfair to him that this discussion has drifted away from him and become quite heated in some instances, which while demonstrating that there is not a consensus for adminship at this time is nevertheless unfortunate and I hope that he is not personally upset with his RfA having some of the posts on it that it has. Thus, in my opinion, Seresin has done admirable work as a vandal fighter, but I just do not feel comfortable with some of what I have seen in regards to judgment and analysis in some AfDs and in the current arbitration case. That does not mean I would necessarily disagree with him on every occasion, but I think that perhaps more experience will help. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

   As I said before you tried to have the last word yet again, we should continue this at user talk. User:Dorftrottel 18:39, February 9, 2008

   I've replied to you there. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

   Oppose per a few concerns that I have with the user. This edit (as given by Dihydrogen Monoxide) does seem to show that Serisin isn't that well acquainted with commons precedent, and when it comes to CSD (a place you have expressed that you wish to work) basic understanding of image policy is necessary. There also seems to be a incessant desire to delete as per the opposers above explain. Other things like the name changes, the informal approach to his signature and a lack of commitment to building the encyclopedia, just add up to something that I don't expect to see in an administrator candidate. He has some good values and they are appreciated but there is something missing, however I am unable to put my 'finger on it' as it were. Rudget. 17:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

   I'm pretty sure Dihydrogen meant 'common precedent', i.e. it is common to notify WikiProjects when articles in their scope are being AfD'd. I respectfully suggest that you don't actually understand what you're quoting from DHMO. 86.149.135.37 (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

   Either way, my oppose still stands. Rudget. 21:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

   It was a typo, see my comments above. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 00:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

   Abstaining. What a bloodbath! I've been keeping a track of this RFA ever since I posted the above comment, and I've given much thought, although a oppose would inappropriate at this time, so would a support. Rudget. 13:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

8. Oppose Does not give the impression of being objective with regards to deletions, and being too keen to delete is not a good thing for an admin (as I have witnessed recently). Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 21:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

   Do you mean Eyrian-type admin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.187.52.1 (talk • contribs) 15:09, 8 February 2008

9. Oppose I was going to sit this one out, but i'm deeply concerned by the posts of user:Dorftrottel both here and on the talk page. I have no choice but to oppose someone who's supported in this way.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

   Yah, I was afraid he would provoke that type of reaction. The nom always pays when a supporter does something like that. A pity, though. That rant really was out of the nom's control. Sometimes Dorftrottel is right on the money. Other times, he forgets his own advice. <<sigh>> Cheers, Dlohcierekim Deleted? 15:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

   I went back and forth on this one and I don't think the nom would have made those statements. If i'd been 100% sold, I wouldn't have flipped. But I was a little concerned on a couple diffs, then I was swayed to vote by the comments. In the end I went with the old saying "You are who your friends are."--Cube lurker (talk) 15:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

   I understand. Don't know if there is a prior relationship between him and the nom. I never knew the nom before the RfA. The scary thing was, I supported partly "Per Dorftrottel." Then, WOW! I had to strike part of my support. I agree that I feel some of the oppose comments missed the mark. There are much better ways of saying that then the way Dorf did. These things happen sometimes. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 15:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

   So it's guilty by association? One should judge a candidate based upon his/her comments, not based upon something somebody else says. This is, IMHO, entirely unfair and offers the possibility of people sabotaging other people's RfA's. It might set the precedent that if you really want to kill a nomination, don't oppose, but support and make an ass of yourself.Balloonman (talk) 15:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

   I understand the concern, but I thought it through a little more then that. If his supporters outburst didn't dovetail with the all caps response in the AFD i'd have been a lot more likely to ignore it.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

   This is the stupidest, most bad-faithed thing I've seen. I have no relation to Seresin, and he has nothing whatsoever to do with my outburst. I just think that some who are opposing are doing so not because they have actual concerns, but rather because they are inclusionists and want to prevent someone arguably less-inclusion-leaning from getting the tools. That's pretty much it. Now, what do you want me to do? Should I remove my support? Would you then remove your oppose? User:Dorftrottel 16:18, February 8, 2008

   Accusing me of bad faith is not going to help. However i'll elaborate to counter the accusation that i'm opposing without actual concerns. [11] This diff struck me poorly. I saw the first line as "I'M RIGHT AND YOU'RE ALL STUPID". But I said I don't know if that's enough to make me chime in. Then I see his most ardent supporter is someone who continues to use "inclusionist" as some sort of vile slur and a reason to discount the opinions of anyone who's this group as a second-class citizen, and I had to chime in. If these are the people who look at him as a model citizen, I'm worried. I voted my consience.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

   What I mean with the inclusionist point is what I said above: Some (a tiny minority, to be clear) of the opposers are people who I have come across in AfDs, where they imho fairly often vote keep, and all policy-based arguments fall on deaf ears with them. Now I see some of those oppose here with similarly weak arguments, mostly related to XfD, and I'm having a very very very hard time assuming perfectly good faith. FYI, I am not Seresin's "most ardent" supporter: I'm one of the most ardent RfA supporters in general. I've been in similar situations in many RfAs of very different users, because I'm an "adminship inclusionist", so to speak, and an aggressive bastard when I become emotional. And I do not look at Seresin as a model citizen, I merely happen to agree with the excellent nomination statements and I'm confident that most people who don't let any (imo relatively unimportant and spurious) incluionist/deletionist reasoning sway their judgment will share this view. User:Dorftrottel 16:55, February 8, 2008

   OMG, Dorftrottel. Giving the appearance of harassing the opposer is just going to dig a deeper hole for the poor nom. As a totally disinterested observer who happens to trust the nom with the tools, I would urge you to reconsider your remarks. It may be that you owe the nom and this opposer an apology. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 16:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

   He's opposing because of my stupid rant, and I can't let that stand. And to be sure: I owe the candidate, the nominators and everyone else here an apology or two or three. User:Dorftrottel 16:55, February 8, 2008

   Opposition to an RfA based on a comment or series of comments made by someone other than the candidate, which the candidate has not endorsed or had anything much to do with, strikes me as totally without any merit. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

   With full respect, i'm going to try to clarify this because my feelings have got spread out a bit. I read the original info. I didn't like what I saw in the diff I cited above. I thought about opposing. I then decided as noted "i'll sit this one out" even though my impression was to oppose. Then I read the defense of the nom by the 3rd party. That moved me to actually act on my first instinct and post an oppose. That said , I posted a vote. Count it. Ignore it. Delete and oversight it. Pass this nom or not. I'm going to disengage from this thread.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

   Note: There are no official prerequisites for adminship, other than having an account and having a basic level of trust from other editors. The community looks for a variety of things in candidates, and everybody has their own opinion on this. Guilt by association is a valid reason. Kingturtle (talk) 17:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

   It has been, and the response to harrrassing or attacking an opposer has often been an out pouring of opposes. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 18:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

   Actually Wikipedia:ATA#Other arguments to avoid lists Association fallacy (aka Guilty by Association) as an argument to avoid. Especially, when it is clear that the person who is acting is not doing so in the best interest of the candidate. If this user didn't have an established account, I would almost be inclined to believe that the person was doing it intentionally to ruin Seresin's RfA!Balloonman (talk) 21:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

   Me? User:Dorftrottel 23:52, February 8, 2008

10. Oppose - seems too young, too rough. May be a fine candidate in the next decade. Greswik (talk) 19:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

    Just curious, do you mean "the next calendar decade, from 2010 to 2019" or "ten years from now, in 2018"? — CharlotteWebb 21:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

11. I do sense that the user is over-eager to delete as noted above, though Dorftrottel's entertainingly sharp comments (which have now been struck out for some reason — I don't think that was necessary) almost had me willing to overlook it. Yes, thank you for recognizing that AFD is not a vote (and neither is RFA in theory, cough cough cough). Yes, do play from your fucking heart. Yes, it's okay to scream sometimes. But it's not okay to make broad assumptions about the "notability" of a category of topics, be they railway stations, or bus routes, or television episodes, or shopping malls, or runway incursions (as far as I'm concerned). Sorry. — CharlotteWebb 21:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

    Thanks for the compliment. I struck those comments myself, since someone actually opposed because I supported in this —typical for me— quite outspoken way. However, I do think there's a vast difference between a "deletionist" and someone who demands minimum encyclopedic standards to be fulfilled notability- and verifiability-wise. I'd personally put Seresin into the latter drawer, whence why I can comfortably support. I would never support an actual deletionist who makes many non-agreeable AfD nominations etc. User:Dorftrottel 11:48, February 9, 2008

    Is there a third category for those users who make absurd comments like: "Outright deletion is probably too much to hope for, but maybe merge them to some other list that should also be deleted eventually". Hopefully Seresin will let me know if he was joking here. — CharlotteWebb 16:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

    Would it be OK if I ask for clarification, CharlotteWebb? If you mean that the candidate made a broad assumption about notability, could you be more specific please, maybe provide a diff? I think maybe you're thinking of a comment where the candidate said that railroad stations are not all notable. That is not a broad assumption: it's quite the opposite, an assertion that each one must be considered on its merits rather than making a broad assumption about them. --Coppertwig (talk) 15:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

    While I recognize the post-facto ambiguity, I think he would have commented much differently (calmly in fact) if he was interested in considering the articles on their own merits, rather than in the obviously negative context of being "(OMFG) MORE RAILWAY STATIONS!" or whatever exactly he said. I've thought about this for a couple of days, and I'm afraid I can't convince myself to support him at this time. Sorry. — CharlotteWebb 16:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

    Not to mention the other (perhaps more bizarre) part of the diff where he suggests that we should merge 250 articles into a list, then delete the list[12], which, if not in jest, makes a few of my mailing list rants seem almost prophetic [13] [14], which isn't a good feeling. — CharlotteWebb 16:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

    Oppose Deleting stuff for the sake of it doesn't improve Wikipedia for its readership. 124.184.99.94 (talk) 00:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC) Discussion welcomed, but only the votes of signed-in editors are counted in RfA. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 01:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

12. Weak Oppose: Grrr..I had to think long and hard about this one. This user certainly does good work - And I honestly don't understand the deletionist standpoint that everyone is using above against him, however, what concerns me is a lack of mainspace edits. An administrator would need vast experience is dealing with the dilemmas that go on with generalized editing. Granted, there is particpation, but I don't like the proportion. I might change though depending on the answers to some other questions. Wisdom89 (talk) 09:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

    Oppose On an article we were both editing, this user treated the repeated removal of every source (and they are reliable sources) from the article as a content dispute [15]. I requested his help [16], and he ignored my detailed and polite request and archived my post 52 hours later. He was editing heavily through that period. Admins have to be willing to help other people edit the encyclopedia, and this interaction left me very unconvinced this user understands that. Darkspots (talk) 11:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

    I agree with Seresin that when one editor wants to include some material and another editor wants to exclude it, then it is a content dispute; I further agree with Seresin that the edits in question were not vandalism. (I see no evidence that the candidate formed an opinion as to whether it was or was not a content dispute or as to whether ReadyFreddie's edits were or were not vandalism nor any evidence establishing what that opinion, if any, was.)21:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC) I make no comment here as to the merits, if any, of the edits. I see no evidence that Seresin ignored your message or refused your request. Your request was that Seresin look at a certain diff and consider editing the article back to your preferred version. As far as I know, Seresin may well have looked at the diff and may well have considered editing the article back to your preferred version. A decision not to edit an article back to your preferred version does not appear to me to be a good reason to oppose this RfA. As far as I can see, Seresin was not involved in the edit dispute in question but was making unrelated edits to the article. Seresin may have chosen not to get involved in the edit dispute for any of a number of valid reasons, including being busy at the time. --Coppertwig (talk) 15:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

    Oh, Coppertwig, aren't they all content disputes? Yes, I greatly preferred the version of the article that wasn't written by the user that got indef blocked for sockpuppetry. If I saw this edit in recent changes, I would investigate. I would in this case see two years of people trying to explain WP:V to a long series of sockpuppets on the article talk page. I would use verifiability as my rationale to revert the article to the version that had a lot of verifiable sources, as opposed to the version that had none.

    Wikipedia:Vandalism says that blanking vandalism is "Removing all or significant parts of pages' content without any reason, or replacing entire pages with nonsense. Sometimes important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary." I considered the above referenced edit to be the removal of significant parts of the page's content because no valid reason was given, i.e. vandalism. I recognize that this is a point on which reasonable people may differ.

    Look, I was asking this user to care. I think that good-faith talk-page requests should get an answer. You state that you do not; that is where we differ. Like I said, Soleil was very active in the few days after my request. My larger point is that admins should be willing to explain themselves. Recent RfA talk-page discussions have indicated that a number of editors feel that civility concerns at the RfA is the key predictor of whether or not an administrator will be desysopped. I think answering good-faith, serious talk-page posts is civil, and ignoring them is not. Hence my oppose. I think it's a valid reason to oppose, and I think that I'm entitled to not have my considered opinion in this discussion called invalid. Darkspots (talk) 17:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

    You asked for help in a content dispute and didn't get the answer you were hoping for. I'm still not clear how this reflects on the candidate's suitability for adminship. Does it mean he will go crazy with the delete button? Ban editors indiscriminately? Protect pages that don't need it? I don't see how behaviour in one (non-administrative) scenario maps onto the others. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 17:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

    "My larger point is that admins should be willing to explain themselves". What I was "hoping for" and what I expect are two different things. Yeah, I was hoping for a hand. I expected to get an answer. If I had gotten an answer that "I feel that these two versions of the article represent a content dispute" I would have thought the user should brush up on Wikipedia:Verifiability, but I wouldn't be opposing here. Admins have to be willing to deal with "why did you delete my article". It's annoying, but it's part of the gig. Nobody, supporting or opposing, denies that this editor will get his fair share of those and more. I think he could use some time to reflect on civility to people who come to his talk page. Ignoring new users can easily lead to them being disenchanted with Wikipedia, and we then lose their contributions. I'm not so concerned that he'll delete articles that he should not as that he'll dismiss those users who want him to explain himself. And isn't all we have to go on are "non-administrative" scenarios before an editor gets the bit? Darkspots (talk) 18:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

    I think you are misrepresenting the facts a little. First, this the statment you made about Soleil treating the repeated removal of every source (and they are reliable sources) from the article as a content dispute.. In fact the dif that you use to support that position is a response to ReadyFreddie when ReadyFreddie called YOUR edits vandalism!) Look at the timeline again. Soliel made an edit (which you indicated was a constructive edit. You reverted "vandalism" spelling out ReadyFreddie's edits. You unreverted half of Soleil's changes which were reverted when you made a big change...which clearly indicates that you didn't lump Soleil's changes in with what you preceived to be vandalism. ReadyFreddie comes along and call your reversion of reversion of vandalism vandalism. And reverts your changes. Soleil comes back along and restores his edits, which again you thought were constructive, and states that your edits "were certainly not vandalism. I have not restored them, but restored my earlier fixes." You then went to his talk page asking for help. Perhaps he could have responded, but your presentation of the facts here is not accurate. I should note, that if Soleil was unfamiliar with the issue, and his edits were strictly stylistic, his advice would have been to take the issue to RfC. At the same time that you went to his talk page, an admin told you that you should take this to RfC. Not everybody enjoys getting into content disputes---especially on subjects they aren't familiar with.Balloonman (talk) 19:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

    And I think you're missing the point here and casting aspersions on my honesty to defend your nominee. The admin told me to take this to RFCU, not RfC. A very different process. You tell someone to go to RfC to solve a content dispute. You tell someone to go to RFCU when you think there is a reasonably good chance that they have a sockpuppet on their hands. I thought there was a rat here, the admin agreed that might be the case and told me how to proceed, RFCU bore that out. I think you know the difference between the two processes very well. The rest of your post takes a confusing series of events and makes it even more confusing. You say that I was misrepresenting the facts, but all I did was say that Soleil treated the wholesale removal of all sources from the article as a content dispute. Why else did he ignore it twice, three times if you count my post to his talk page, if he didn't think it was a content dispute? Then you say that "not everybody enjoys getting into content disputes." I totally agree! This series of events is something that Coppertwig calls a content dispute, that Soleil treated as a content dispute with his actions and edit summaries ("There needs to be discussion about the page"), and yet it turned out to be part of an ongoing, thoroughly documented series of vandalism by a user who employs multiple sockpuppets. But that's not what my oppose is about! I'm making it clear that I'm opposing him because he ignored my good-faith, serious request for help, and immediately archived it. I'm entitled to have as a criterion for supporting a RfA that admins be approachable people who are willing to defend their actions. What if a new user's request for help with an admin action gets archived without explanation two days later? Darkspots (talk) 20:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

    When you cite a comment where he is defending your edits as proof that he was supporting the exact opposite opinion, then I would call that misrepresenting the facts. As for immediately archiving them. He didn't immediately archive them, but followed his standard practice of archiving discussions a few days after the last post in the thread. If you look at his archive histories you will see that he doesn't leave things on his talk page for that long. Your oppose implies that he did more than two very minor edits. As for RFC vs RFCU---they are both request for comments. So you are parsing hairs.75.53.96.229 (talk) 22:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

    Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser is not any sort of RfC whatsoever, so I don't know wtf I'm parsing, but it's not hair. I was making the point that Balloonman didn't pay much attention to what had happened before posting here. Darkspots (talk) 13:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

    Ooops, you're right... I was thinking he gave you advice to get and RFC-User ;-) My apologies... but I still stand by the notion that your timeline/reasoning doesn't represent what happened. He was defending your edits as not being vandalism, he made no comment about Ready's.Balloonman (talk) 05:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

    I realize that you were disappointed that the candidate gave you neither the help you hoped for nor a reply to your post, and I consider that it's valid for you to decide to oppose for that reason, although I don't agree that it's a good reason.

    Note, however, that the month of November 2007, unlike February 2008, had 30 days. The candidate did not archive your message "immediately" as you say, nor "52 hours later" as you also say, but he archived his entire talk page on Dec. 3 at 03:55 (UTC), over 3 full days after your message, archiving in the same edit not only your message but all other messages on his talk page at the time, including several messages on Dec. 1 and 2, one of which was a lovely birthday greeting he seemed to enjoy.

    When you say "You state that you do not" you assert that I said something that I did not in fact say. However, I say this now: that if every good-faith message required an answer, then conversations would have no way of ending. I believe that a message which asks someone to "consider" doing something does not necessarily require an answer, and that to leave such a message unanswered shows nothing about what one might do if one were asked to explain something one had done.

    I agree with Balloonman that when the candidate stated in the edit summary of the diff you provided that "Those edits were certainly not vandalism", that the candidate was apparently stating that your edits were not vandalism. He was making no comment as to whether there was or was not a content dispute or whether ReadyFreddie's edits were or were not vandalism. I apologize to the candidate and to participants in this discussion for not clarifying this earlier.

    I hope no one is confused by this diff with regard to Darkspot's incorrect claim that the candidate "immediately" archived Darkspot's message. This diff was the next edit to the candidate's talk page, an hour and a half after Darkspot's message, and confused me for a second because it says "User talk page vandalism: YW" in the edit summary. However, this edit was not the candidate archiving Darkspot's message. Darkspot's message remained on the candidate's talk page for 3 days, until the entire talk page was archived in a regular monthly archiving action. The diff I just provided was actually the candidate adding a message saying "You're very welcome,", addressed to J-stan and was apparently completely unrelated. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

    Okay, I made an arithmetical error. My post was on Seresin's talk page for 76 hours 42 minutes, not 52 hours. Nobody ever accused me of being any good at math. I apologize for the mistake, however, and my error was in good faith. It sure felt to me at the time like my post disappeared very quickly.

    My larger point still stands. Admins should be willing to be helpful and to explain their actions. They should, in an ideal world, be able to discern when blatant policy violations are occurring, as they were in my case. I think Seresin needs more time, to gain more maturity, before being given the bit, based on my interaction with him. In all of the above, I've been portrayed as accusing Seresin of any number of things I did not accuse him of. As an editor, his actions were acceptable. As a prospective admin, I say no thanks, he doesn't rise to the caliber of the vast majority of admins with whom I have dealt on Wikipedia. I can definitely imagine supporting him down the road, after a careful review of how he deals with other users. Darkspots (talk) 14:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

    changing to Neutral per delldot. Darkspots (talk) 22:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

13. Oppose, because of the answer to question 7. If being an admin is "no big deal" then it ought not to take 5 administrators to persuade you to relinquish your shiny new buttons. And to ignore the opinions of those who are not administrators shows a breathtaking arrogance. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

    That is not to say that if several editors who were not adminstrators, but in good standing, requested I undergo another RfA in good faith, I wouldn't take their recommendation under serious advisement

    Who said he would ignore the opinions of non-admins? And please do not make any personal attacks.--Sunny910910^{(talk|Contributions)} 00:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

    Let's get one thing straight: it is a personal attack if I say something like "You are breathtakingly arrogant". It is not a personal remark if I say that something you have written displays "breathtaking arrogance". That is a comment about what you have written, not about you. To return to the matter in hand, "I would voluntarily have a steward remove my flag and restand at RfA if 5 adminstrators requested it. I restrict it to administrators in my parameters in order to guarantee that the people requesting my resignation are people who are established ..." seems fairly unequivocal to me, hence my opposition. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

    You should note that he also stated:

    That is not to say that if several editors who were not adminstrators, but in good standing, requested I undergo another RfA in good faith, I wouldn't take their recommendation under serious advisement

    So he's not saying that it is only admins that he would listen to.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions|Guest)} 21:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

    Then I would want to know how many non-adins it takes to equal five admins. I am not satisfied with the criteria as stated, and so my oppose remains. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

    Very well then, though I disagree with your reason, I'll accept it. Not everyone has the same criteria for an admin and as such, I'll back away.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions|Guest)} 00:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

    The granting of sysop privileges should not be a big deal. That is in character with the rest of how Wikipedia operates. Anyone can edit it. Anyone. It takes a "trusted editor" to deny someone editing access (except in the most extreme cases) for more than a very limited period of time, because of the principal of assuming good faith. A person must have demonstrated that they should be denied the ability to edit based on a select, consensus driven set of criteria. Admins are approved for the "shiny new buttons" as trusted members of the community as determined by consensus. It is not easy, except in a few egregious instances, to remove those buttons because the community has already given its trust, and because of the same principal of assuming good faith. If adminship requires consensus to give trust, why should it take any easier method that consensus to withdraw that trust? It should not. And admiship should not be given capriciously, because a few seek to advance someone for a political reason, nor should it be removed because a discontented few seek to remove an admin in retaliation for actions of which they do not approve or for political reasons. Wikipedia should not be a battleground, and adminship/de-adminship should not be used as a club in some political conflict that really is a distraction from our real goal/mission-- to build an encyclopedia. Denying someone the ability to edit is a much bigger deal than allowing that ability. It only makes sense that denying someone the ability to serve as an admin be a bit "bigger a deal" than granting them that ability. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 01:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

    Dlocierekim, that speech was amazing.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)} 18:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

14. Oppose' Despirte a good answer to my first question, i do not yet have confidence in continued neutrality, and the replies here indicate a certain degree of defensiveness .DGG (talk) 03:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

    Oppose per opposers. I don't think I had encountered him until this a couple of days ago. Not the end of the world, but not an impressive nomination in policy terms. Johnbod (talk) 21:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

    Perhaps I missed something but there doesn't appear to be any mention of Seresin in the link you provided.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions|Guest)} 21:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

    Ooops, apologies - identity confusion. Vote stricken, as the opposers put me off support. Johnbod (talk) 21:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

15. Oppose CharlotteWebb sums it up, I distrust broad applications of notability jargon, even though this is somewhat balanced by some saner contributions to AFD. Multiple username changes are another cause for concern. Catchpole (talk) 12:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
16. Oppose, this editor has been here less than a year and under 29% of his edits are to the mainspace. Also, the fact that this editor is still a junior in high school, coupled with comments like these, is a concern of mine. --Pixelface (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

    Your oppose on that comment is valid, but I'd argue that age/grade is hardly relevant, compared to maturity. I was shocked to find out that a fellow administrator and friend of mine was in high school -- viewing the user purely on the basis of maturity, I would've guessed he'd be much older. As other examples, Ilyanep was a bureaucrat at 13 or 14, and I became an administrator at 15. Ral315 (talk) 18:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

    Cracky, Ral. I figured from the quality work you do here that you were a middle aged college grad. Ageism, as we've both been around long to know, has long been recognized as a poor basis on which to evaluate another's work. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 19:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

17. Oppose - due to maturity issues. We can afford to wait. I'll be glad to support after a longer track record of admin-like activities without problems. The Transhumanist 01:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
18. Oppose. Too many issues raised above for me to be comfortable with this. Good future admin potential, but now doesn't seem to be the right time. Singopo (talk) 00:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral

On the fence on this one. Changing his name was the right thing to do, transparency about the name is good, as is waiting awhile after the change to accept the nomination. I see a lot of respect for the community. I don't think, however, that the opposers are being unreasonable, especially since the faultlines here have currently led to an ugly and rather unnecessary ArbCom case. It takes a green thumb to know what to prune, otherwise you're just taking a weed-whacker to the whole garden. Yeah, you're getting the dandelions, but if you also chop out the chrysanthemums I'm not sure you're helping that much. I'd like to see some assurances that you still have respect for those with whom you disagree (the current Arb case could have been avoided had respect for other Wikipedians come into play) incidentally respect allows both sides to get closer to what they want: an excellent encyclopedia, rather than a savage warzone. --JayHenry (talk) 15:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you talking about the episodes-characters case? Relata refero (talk) 17:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was referring to the episodes-characters case and the general abuse that is heaped upon so-called "inclusionists" rather viciously by some editors, such as we saw redacted from this RFA earlier. After the complete lack of respect, and sometimes outright abuse that some of these editors (unfailingly polite editors, in my experience) have received at the hands of Eyrian and others I understand their reluctance here. I'd like, however, to give Seresin the opportunity to respond to the concerns of the opposers, and also to respond to the comments of Dorftrottel, before I make up my mind. --JayHenry (talk) 05:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the Eyrian you're referring to, but can assure you that there is plenty of abuse of deletionists going on. See here, for example. --Jack Merridew 11:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll start by saying that I don't behave in the manner that the Arbitration Case to which you refer to exists to resolve. I don't edit war, and try not to be dismissive of others' opinions. For an example of getting consensus, see this conversation. I made a proposal, notified relevant talk pages, and when my only feedback was in support, carried it out. Editors later voiced concern, but I wasn't reverted for lack of discussion. I sought a consensus, and since they agreed (by lack of later action) to abide by it, we have a consensus. As you have specifically asked for comment about Dorftrottel, I'll give it. His comments were out of line, and not civil. I would have preferred it if he hadn't made them. seresin | wasn't he just...? 07:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Neutral I'm also on the fence...I want to support, but there's a pretty loud oppose section. Spencer^T♦C 12:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)Changed vote to support per following comments

Neutral over mere noise? Read over the supports (and his contribs). Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You know it is not "mere noise". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.187.52.1 (talk) 15:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't let the volume of the arguments sway you. Go with your gut. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 15:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Changing vote to support after careful consideration and reading over comments again Spencer^T♦C 02:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

1. Neutral per delldot. Darkspots (talk) 01:01, 14 February 2008 (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.