Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sesel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Sesel

Final (18/3/0) ending 21:38 1 April 2005 (UTC)

Sesel is an extremely valuable contributor to Wikipedia, and I was rather surprised when I realised that he was not an admin. He has been a registered user since July, 2003 (initially as User:TwinsFan48 and has over 4000 edits between the two logins. Far more importantly he has made a very important contribution to left wing and socialist parties at Wikipedia. The third world focus of this work is important in countering the systemic bias here in Wikipedia. Sesel has shown himself to be a polite and impartial editor, retaining calm and composure even when subject to personal attacks. I think he would make an excellent admin. (NB. My first run-in on Wikipedia was with Sesel. It was entirely my fault, and he handled it admirably and helped me turn anger into a useful NPOV contribution). - Guettarda 21:39, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I accept your nomination. —Sesel 02:02, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. Guettarda 21:40, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  2. A careful and productive editor as well as a good member of the community. -Willmcw 02:40, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
  3. I've seen his edits on some topics I keep an eye on, and they've always seemed good to me. Everyking 05:07, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 06:14, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. This should be no big deal. JuntungWu 08:43, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support. I was impressed recently with his balanced and temperate response to some very unpleasant personal insults.] in response to what seemed to me to be impeccable editing. ping 11:00, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support. Absolutely. Christiaan 11:49, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  8. Darwinek 22:15, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  9. Andre (talk) 18:14, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  10. Support. My experience with Sessel edits is quite good. I don't think the issue (see comments bellow) over lists of dictarors and fathers of nations is much of importance in voting here - I am glad Sesel took care and the problem is general. Pavel Vozenilek 21:30, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  11. RadicalSubversiv E 04:56, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  12. Ruy Lopez 03:05, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  13. Support, in line with my position that admin status should be easy to obtain, and rather quickly withdrawn with zero tolerance of any abuse for personal reasons rather than use in the service of the community. Based on his editing tastes, Sesel appears to likely to increase admin coverage in some of the more obscure nether regions of wikipedia.--Silverback 14:32, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  14. Lst27 (talk) 00:33, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  15. Merovingian (t) (c) (w) 02:48, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
  16. Support. Rad Racer 21:02, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  17. Support. I've seen quite a lot of this user around the place. As his political opposite, I kept an eye on him for quite a while to watch for POV, but he passed that test with flying colours. He does a very good job of keeping his opinions out of his edits, and I am prepared to trust him fully with the keys. By the way, I would have nominated him myself had I realized he wasn't already an admin. David Cannon 23:26, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  18. Great editing record. And I like the List of Disneyworlds in Andorra. Smit 08:49, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Does not meet my admin criterion, jguk 09:07, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  2. I have very negative experiences of Sesel. I see him as someone who prefers to engage in edit wars rather than discussion on the talk page, which is very inappropriate for an admin. I haven't found the few edits I've seen have given me faith either in his ability as an encyclopedia writer or as someone into NPOV. He put an external link, is to give a bad link which the reader then has to find the 2 connecting links, ploughing through SOAB watch, in order to eventually find the tiniest of paragraphs stuck at the bottom of a page. It felt like he was advertising SOAB watch to me; perhaps he is different when not dealing with El Salvadorean politicians? --SqueakBox 22:20, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
    To be more specific he engaged in an edit war at Roberto D'Aubuisson on March 18, reverting 3 times to the point where the article was protected. [1] While I agree that User:Trey Stone does have some history of right-wing POV, the same cannot be said for me, --SqueakBox 22:45, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
    • He edit-warred with Trey Stone who kept inserting a broken link to CIA (and a POV statement) - reverting a user with a history of POV-pushing, reverting a user who is inserting a broken link...sounds like Sesel was doing the right thing there. Have a look at Trey Stone's Talk page - he has been blocked for vandalism, personal attacks and 3RR violations. The disagreement with you was minor - neither of you is wrong (yet) - you both made what look to be good faith edits. I think well of you as an editor, but I must disagree with you on this issue - Sesel has not broken the rules, he isn't POV-pushing as far as I can tell...and as for the revert warring, you especially should know what it's like to deal with POV-pushing vandalism. A good editor (and someone worth being an admin) stays within the rules, as Sesel did, even when provoked. Guettarda 23:14, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    Well the SOAB isn't a point I would bother edit warring about even if I were in to such behaviour, I just felt narked that he ignored the talk page consent I was trying to bring up. I hope Sesel will answer my questions here, as I am usually and here) open to having my mind changed. Nobody is going to put Stone up for adminship, so right now Sesel is under greater scrutiny. I think the article was very POV against D'Aubuisson, and though he sounds a nasty piece of work it would have been nice of sesel to try to POV it a bit himself. I think we can test our skills as editors on people whose politics we don't like; ie trying to keep the article in a POV state anyway? Anyway i have reframed my question to him below? and reworded a bit above. --SqueakBox 23:44, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. He didn't respond to the matter Squeakbox raised at Roberto D'Aubuisson, and although it may be a minor issue responsiveness and accepting responsibility for one's actions are key attributes in an admin. -- Viajero 18:16, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    I didn't respond because I gave up trying to keep the link on the page. Someone (I forget who) said they would let 24 hours expire and then revert, which (at that point) was fine by me. —Sesel 20:05, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It was me who asked for a response within 24 hours at [[Talk:Roberto D'Aubuisson. Does this mean you will now accept the link being deleted, given 2 people want it so? I ask because I note you still do not respond on the talk page, where, of course, your voice is equal to any of ours. I can see you are a good editor, and if you had engaged in debate with me about the link I would have supported you being an admin. I am not bothered about the lcontent of the link, just the quality (or lack) therof. I think you got frazzled by Trey, understandable with his childish vandaliosm of your user page, but neither Viajero or I are remotely like him. I hope you don't allow getting frazzled by something to get in the way of your (potential) work as an admin. --SqueakBox 20:39, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

  • Sesel has 3184 edits and 2714 to the main namespace. TwinsFan48 has 931 edits and 831 to the main namespace. —Korath (Talk) 23:03, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • None of the sysop chores you mention seem to require sysop privilege. Why do you want to be a sysop?--Silverback 23:53, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I have a very hands-off style and haven't thought about this question very much, but I would like to be able to move articles with more facility and help newer Wiki users especially in the area of POV/NPOV. —Sesel 16:48, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • All right, but you realize that sysops have to use the same page move procedure as everyone else, when it involves deleting a page that is not a redirect with a single-edit history. Rad Racer 20:46, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Sure Why Not. Better to make another person happy than sad :)
    • I moved this anonymous support vote by 24.238.168.79 here to the comments section. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:30, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't think an edit war by itself is reason enough to reject a candidate, unless someone can provide a diff showing evidence of rudeness or 3RR violations. I'm inclined to support, unless anyone can give a better reason why not. Rad Racer 21:01, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. Clean article layout is important to me. I hate red links and often find that an article exists but the link is misspelled or not specific enough. I occasionally make comments on VfD (especially around issues of notability and factual accuracy; I don't normally vote on vanity pages, 2-week-old bands or celebrities). But in general, I prefer to focus on article content.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Some of my better articles include France-Albert René, Guatemalan Party of Labour, People's Progressive Party (Guyana), Francisco Macías Nguema, Jean-Paul Ngoupandé, Goukouni Oueddei, and all sorts of topics relating to Nauru and Equatorial Guinea. I have also contributed heavily to List of socialists, Father of the Nation (see q. 3), List of national leaders, List of political families, Dominant-party system and others. I am pleased with all work that is created to counter systemic bias and expand knowledge beyond the Western world view. I have contributed very heavily in the past months due to my transition to homeschooling.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and will deal with it in the future?
A. My communication with other users was fairly limited until recently, which may have something to do with writing about relatively obscure topics. In August I had one totally unreasonable outburst (Talk:List of U.S. foreign interventions since 1945#South Africa) for which I apologize (I have not contributed to that article since October with the exception of one revert), but otherwise there haven't been any other unreasonable reactions. I was challenged on Roberto D'Aubuisson (by a user with a history of right-wing POV who later vandalized my user page), List of political epithets (personal attacks were made against me; age and maturity questioned; responded to an accusation about Sen. Robert Byrd), and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Clay Oliver Hill (accused of being a sockpuppet). Also an issue with User:Pavel Vozenilek, who insists that Father of the Nation and List of dictators be slashed to "half a dozen or so" names, which I believe will enforce a Western bias and reduce knowledge about countries outside the Western world view. I semi-seriously created the now-deleted List of Disneyworlds in Andorra article in response to a VfD vote, which is now on BJAODN, and Category:Radical lawyers, which was deemed to be POV. I have strong political beliefs, but I limit these to the talk pages if a specific issue is raised and try not to let them impact on actual contributions.
4. How would you address POV issues against a character in an article you find the character obnoxious, as you probably find Roberto D'Aubuisson obnoxious (I know I do). ie how do you view neutrality?
A. For an "objective" assessment to be created, there must be a positive component and a negative component to someone's life. If the truth and/or historical record is unanimously "biased" against someone, it is not my or anyone else's job to concoct a positive aspect when one simply doesn't exist.

Actually there is positive things about D'Aubuisson; by chance one came out today, because of course no politician can ever get political power without some kind of positive support base. i think to search that out is very important in an article so obviously POV as D'Aubuisson was. I came across your work when I found D'Aubuisson protected, which I then asked to unprotect because Stone was blocked. I then felt I was trying to gain consensus, because i don't like the layout of the link and it's lack of any much content, and I felt that instead of trying to build that consensus by expressing your view on the talk page you jumped down my throat. i had assumed you were not against the move, and given Stone hadn't expressed his opinion I wasn't counting his vote either. So I would ask for more respect for communication, and the talk page, when, as looks likely, you become an admin. And I would love to know why you want to keep the link at D'Aubuisson.--SqueakBox 01:06, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)