Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Simply south

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

[edit] Simply south

(31/15/3); Ended 09:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Simply south (talk · contribs) - Hello. I'm Cool Blue, and I'd like to nominate Simply south for adminship. The user first came of help to me when I was stuck, and requested an editor review. Since then the user's made almost 9,000 contributions, and been very courteous to me, and other users. This is one of those users we all think are administrators, but really aren't. However, I think I'd better let the contributions speak for themselves. Ladies and gentlemen, Simply south! Cool Blue^{talk to me} 21:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Co-nomination: I humbly co-nom a truly fine wikipedian, Simply south. As stated in the original nomination, he is the kind of user who you thought was an admin, but is in fact not. He joined wikipedia back in late March of 2006, and since then has racked up close to 9000 edits, with over 3800 of them being on the mainspace. He has helped bring several articles up to GA status, such as Docklands Light Railway. This is a wikipedian who I believe we can trust with the tools. So with out further ado, I present to you Simply south! --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 13:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Co-nomination by The Sunshine Man I first came across Simply south when I edited as Tellyaddict where he contributed to the discussion of WikiProject North East England, since then I have spoke to him several times and he has always kept a cool and level head. He had declined several RfA nominations in the past which I think shows patience and waiting to get things right, since then; his edits have been extremely impressive and as well as this, he also works hard on UK railway related articles and other areas of Wikipedia, overall I think Simply south is an exemplery candidate for the mop and bucket and could use the tools wisely. Good luck. The Sunshine Man 10:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you for the gracious noms and so i accept. I do acknowledge i enjoy Word association but as a relief area. Please review all edits withdraw.

Simply south 19:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: I am hoping to work on backlogs and generally on pages, such as WP:RM. I am also hoping to continually contribute to Wikipedia, through articles and agreements with other users. Ia am not certain on the other areas i will focus on but i will take it as it comes. I also hope to help out with many WikiProjects. I may also participate in some XFDs as well.

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

A: I consider many of my edits in general as well as articles in the travel, transportation and geographical areas good. The Docklands Light Railway article is a nice example - many people, not just me, managed to get it up to Good Article status. Hopefully in near future it will acieve FA. I am a proud member of WP:Rail as well as trying to coordinate WP:TIS and very recently hope to coordinate WP:HERTS. I also enjoy many other projects. I am proud at being an interactive user. I also like to review articles and editors.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? b)How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: Yes, honestly, i have been in a few conflicts, one of which i remember here. This was discussed with an understanding and compromise reached. I have tried to be civil and polite which i will maintain and aim to continue to do so, whether articles or discussions. These and other things have helped me improve and will continue to do so. These have not caused me stress generally. I aim not to have many conflicts. I also aim to maintain NPOV in articles and pages etc. If i need help, i will ask others.

Simply south 19:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

4. Mandatory question from After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC) Of your articles and contributions to Wikipedia, are there any of which you are not proud of? Why?

A: I wouldn't really say there have been any of which i have hated although there have been a few edits i have been a bit uncertain on. For example, at one point i was reverting vandalism and looking through their contributions. At one point i readded some information that the user had deleted on Balhae about whether Balhae was Korean, which i was later reverted. I was not directly involved but a discussion occurred on the talk page which was later decided that Balhae was Chinese, it seems.

Comment Is it possible to pose mandatory questions? I was under the impression that all questions are optional. Ninja! 21:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Normally, yes; however in this case: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10], I feel it was appropriate for it to be mandatory. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

That still doesn't change the fact that you have no right to impose mandatory questions upon anyone. All RfA questions are mandatory. Ninja! 16:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you meant to say "All RfA questions are optional.".... No, of course I can't force him to answer. But did you look at the diffs that I posted? If you did, you would have noticed that every one of the 10 was this user posting this exact question as an optional question on someone's RFA. I think that it is reasonable that if Simply South is going to repeatedly ask this question, then he should expect to receive it, and I would imagine that he already had thought of that and had an answer prepared. At any rate, should Simply South feel disturbed by this or feel harmed in any way by my posing this question, or the manner in which I did it, I would be happy for him to correspond with me and discuss the matter and I am sure that we would settle it promptly. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with you there, I was just wondering how the question was mandatory if you can't force him to answer. Anyway, it was splitting hairs to begin with, so, I'll just leave it at this. And yes, I did mean "optional".Ninja! 23:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

5. Optional question from After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC) Can you please elaborate on your expected use of the tools? Which backlogs are you planning most to assist with and what experience do you have in those areas?

A: I am thinking of clearing up backlogs in areas such as i am most familiar with, such as closing and if WP:CONSENSUS, moving many of those at WP:RM and reviewing editors atWP:ER. I will possibly expand into other areas when i have a better understanding. I am familiar with the processes of these and have been involved with many moves. I may want to also get more involved in vandal protection.

A question from bainer (talk)

6. Under what circumstances should one ignore a rule?

A This should probably be used sparsely. So when some discussions have no chance in passing, I will apply WP:SNOWBALL from experience. I will tend to follow ruls but WP:AGF on newcomers and not WP:BITE, for example.

[edit] General comments

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

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Simply south before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

Support

1. Strong Support - As co-nom. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 20:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
2. Strong Support - As original nominator. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 21:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
3. Strong Support - As an editor who has benefited extensively by the work carried out by Simply south on Scottish Railway articles. --Stewart 22:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
4. Support no reasonable cause to object. Have fun with the mop and bucket. Black Harry 20:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
5. Support. Clearly no harm in giving this candidate the tools, does good edits, and it'll do WP:HERTS a lot of good to have an admin as co-ordinator. - Zeibura S. Kathau ^{(Info | Talk)} 20:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
6. Support Been long waiting for this. Majorly (talk | meet) 20:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
7. Support Someone I've run into repeatedly (we overlap a lot) and have never seen anything but sense from — iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
8. Support Only problem isa that your username has one BIG grammatical error... the cardinal directions are always capitalized. :) · AndonicO ^Talk 21:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
9. Support, certainly. -- Phoenix2 ^(holla) 21:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
10. Support: A very good user who can will use the administrative tools well. ~ ΜΛGиυs ΛΠιмυМ ≈ √∞ 21:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
11. Support- Great editor. Boricuaeddie ^{Spread the love!} 21:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
12. Support. I asked Simply south back in March if he'd like to go through this, but he turned it down. I'm very sure that the tools will be well used with Simply south. bibliomaniac15 An age old question... 23:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
13. Support wherefore art thou? --Infrangible 00:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
14. Support - Well-rounded user, will make a great admin. Aquarius • talk 06:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
15. Support As co-nominator. The Sunshine Man 10:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
16. Support - An Excellent editor..should have been an admin ages ago ;)..--Cometstyles 12:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
17. Good fellow who has been a terrific volunteer for us. I look forward to seeing more of him about gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 13:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
18. Support This person is reliable, friendly, and has a need for sysop tools so why not support this editor?--James, La gloria è a dio 20:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
19. Merovingian (T-C-E) 03:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
20. Support Sure...I like the idea. Jmlk17 10:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
21. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 16:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
22. Support. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 17:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
23. Support - I think it's about time you had these tools, Stwalkerster talk review 21:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
24. Support Good user for adminship. Captain panda 23:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
25. Support, per the above, and nom. Anonymous Dissident ^Utter 09:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
26. Support excellent editor, with the patience to explain my mistakes and admit his own. I have read the oppose votes, most seem to be based on experience and if not successful at this time, I hope Simply south will not be put off going for it in the future. Kbthompson 13:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
27. Support, user could use the tools. Abeg92contribs 14:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
28. Support I don't find the opposition compelling enough to sway me. James086^{Talk | Email} 14:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
29. Terence 18:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
30. Support Seems to be a responsible user. Deli nk 19:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
31. Support. Some of the answers might seem a little less than inspiring but a review of the user's contributions looks good and I see no reason to oppose. Arkyan • ^(talk) 18:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. It's been a while, but his overwhelmingly bureaucratic approach to this issue has left a very sour taste in my mouth (if the process itself wasn't enough). Plus I have nothing to suggest he would interpret the tools correctly. Try participating more in the process and acclimatizing further to areas requiring adminship, including WP:RM and WP:XfD as you stated in your first answer. Michaelas¹⁰ 21:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose - I've seen you around a bit and I really respect some of the people who are supporting you. Unfortuately, I am really not impressed by your answers to the questions. You don't need to be an admin to review other editors - anyone can do that. I'm just not comfortable that you have a strong enough understanding of what admins do around here, or how they do it. As such, I'm not comfortable with you having the tools at this time. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 15:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose per After Midnight. I'm sorry, you seem to be a good editor, but the answers to the questions just don't do it for me. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 00:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose per a frankly disappointing answer to Q1. May reconsider if you expand upon this. Riana ⁂ 03:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose. From my experience, a decent, honest editor, but as others have said, I don't see that he understands what adminning is about. JPD (talk) 17:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
6. Oppose for now. A genuine editor, but WP:RM is a very involved process, and you haven't proposed one solid fall-back admin area to focus on in case you get burned out there. Xiner (talk) 23:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
7. Oppose. This user is very keen and always means well. I dealt with this user on a number of occasions when he was new, and while I get the impression he's got the hang of things more since then, I don't really think I'd trust him with the admin tools. I'm not concerned about him abusing them maliciously, just him making a hash of things. (For instance, look at the mangled way this RfA was set up: [11] [12] [13].) Also, I'm not convinced by some of his answers to the questions above: you don't need to be an admin to participate in XfDs for instance, and also the answer to question 6 (especially "I will tend to follow ruls but WP:AGF on newcomers and not WP:BITE, for example.") is not clear at all. Sorry, --RFBailey 15:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
8. Oppose. I have fondness for Simply south but when I saw this nomination I thought "oh no". There is no doubt in my mind he means well with everything he does, but based on a considerable number of his edits, I am convinced he lacks the required skill of judgement that he would need as an adminstrator. Based on what I've seen of his work I am not convinced he has thorough enough understanding of policies and procedures either. MRSC • Talk 15:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
9. Oppose Doesn't seem to have a strong reason for wanting the tools, "backlogs" is too vague. When a user doesn't want the tools for a specific reasons, I get concerned that they want them "just to have them" or for a misplaced sense of authority. TigerShark 19:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
10. Support Oppose (Changed from Support) While I don't see any reason to suggest that this user will explicitly mis-use the tools, I am growing more and more worried that he still doesn't have the experience needed to properly use them. I worry that there will be mishaps and accidental mis-uses of the Admin tools that will be unintentionally damaging to the project.Ninja! Ninja! 23:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
11. Oppose I would like to see him gain some more experience. Crum375 01:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
12. Answer to question 6 indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of multiple policies. Ral315 » 03:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
13. Per everyone above. I don't think this user is ready just yet—arf! 06:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
14. Oppose. I also don't believe the candidate is ready. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
15. The answers to the questions, per Riana and Ral, aren't too confidence-inspiring. As Slim says, I too don't believe this candidate is ready. Daniel 06:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral User undoubtedly has experience with WP:RM, but doesn't have that much experience with XfDs, as of late. I can only count a handful of XfD participation in 2007. I would recommend more XfD participation in the upcoming weeks, regardless the outcome of this RfA. Also, this is isn't something for opposition, but I do find it a bit awkward that you have 600+ contributions to the Sandbox/Word Association game. I would have preferred if you had used that time editing articles, and not playing Wikigames. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

   I do not treat wikipedia as a game and i am not as prolific a player as i used to be.Simply south 23:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

2. Neutral Failed to capitalise the personal pronoun in the above! Seriously, good contributions but the answers fail to demonstrate any form of need for the tools - this looks just like yet another editor who misguidedly believes that adminship is some kind of promotion, which it isn't, hence why I can't support. Sorry. Pedro |  Chat  17:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
3. I am less than impressed by some of the answers to questions, so I will wait and see for now. TML 21:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.