Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SteveBaker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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


[edit] SteveBaker

Final (41/24/17) Ended 17:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

SteveBaker (talk · contribs) – This is a self-nomination SteveBaker 16:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: This is a self nomination - and (unsurprisingly) I accept it!


Questions for the candidate

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

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I'm willing to provide several hours per week working whichever admin backlog is the most pressing. Right now, I think speedy deletion and requested moves are the most pressing needs - but I'm prepared to be flexible if the demand is elsewhere.
(In response to request for more information): I am not seeking adminship in order to get into Wiki politics or policy making or dealing with troublesome users. My sole interest is in improving the encyclopeadic content in as direct a manner as possible. I see backlogs forming in all sorts of areas where adminship is required - it follows then that there must be a shortage of people with admin privilages who can deal with this. The growth curve of number of articles is clearly outstripping the number of active admins - so more admins are needed who will deal with the more mundane day-to-day cleanup. Worse still, I see a growth in the amount of admin time that is spent in areas outside of simply organising the encyclopedia. I believe I can be of service in attacking those mundane areas of adminship that directly result in removal of junk articles/templates/images (of which there are far too many) or in aiding the reorganisation of articles that are wrongly named or otherwise in need of admin help. I'm not seeking high moral purpose here - just a means to fix things that I cannot currently fix for lack of admin status.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I did almost all of the work on Mini - taking it from a near-stub and culminating in a front page featured article. I'm also pleased with my work in transforming both Automobile and Computer from fairly disorganised articles that overlapped the content from other articles - to articles designed from the top-down to be 'gateways' to other articles that provide the majority of the content. This is surprisingly difficult because people become very attached to the long descriptions of things that are already covered (or should be covered) by daughter articles. Possibly the most pleasurable thing is creating new articles and watching them grow and flourish through the work of others. It's an almost magical thing. So a simple article like Tire code (which started out as a 10 line section in another article that I turned into a full article) has grown vastly beyond my knowledge on the subject.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Sadly, yes. One particularly nasty conflict was with User:Wiarthurhu - who twice ended up with indefinite blocks - but aside from that, all other conflicts have been mercifully mild and could be fixed with "don't feed the trolls" technigues - just stop talking and reverting for a couple of weeks - then go back and fix the problem - and usually, the problem goes away quite naturally. Fortunately, my interests have not been in the most controversial areas such as politics and religion. However, I do not seek adminship for these reasons. I'm happy to let mediators deal with that. I'm more concerned with doing jobs that directly improve the encyclopedia but which require admin privilages.
100% Optional Question 4. Why do you not feel the need to write a longer nomination? It's difficult to decide how to vote if you won't really attempt to sway me to by pointing out why you think you should be an admin. Right now, I'm not convinced you really do if you don't want to write a longer nomination. --Lord Deskana (swiftmend!) 17:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
A: Well, I have not written more because there is nothing more to say. There are a bunch of basic housekeeping tasks that need to be done - Wikipedia needs more help (that much is clear) - I'm offering to help. SteveBaker 18:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Supplementary question from (aeropagitica):

5. Why do you want to be an admin?
A: Wikipedia needs more admins - it needs more active admins - and (IMHO) it needs admins who will work in the mundane areas of pruning the crap - organising articles that are in the wrong place - that kind of thing. I believe that Wikipedia needs me. I just want to be helpful. If that's not seen as useful - please vote to oppose - I won't be offended. SteveBaker 18:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Optional questions from Malber (talk · contribs)

6. What do the policy of WP:IAR and the essay WP:SNOW mean to you and how would you apply them?
A: Ignore all rules seems contradictory because there are so many rules...why would we make rules and then encourage people to ignore them? Well, the problem with rules is that rules have exceptions - and one can never adequately list all possible exceptions - so allowing people to break the rules provides an ultimate 'get out' clause. It's also a great sound-bite! WP:SNOW isn't policy - it should (IMHO) be taken strictly at face value - it prevents filibusters - aside from that, I have no problem with ignoring it. If an issue needs to be raised, I'd hope to have the courage to do so even if it doesn't have a hope in hell of making it into policy.
7. Is there ever a case where a punitive block should be applied?
A: No. That is not the purpose of a block. I can't think of a single case where a PURELY punative block would be valid.
8. What would your thought process be to determine that a business article should be deleted using CSD:G11?
A: I have contributed to several articles where this has been an issue. Insulated concrete forms for example. This is a subject that is pretty much only known to people who are in that business. The article is continually under attack from vendors of these things trying to put a solely positive spin on these things - and I have spend some significant effort to retain both positive and negative facts about these things. In the end, articles about businesses have to live under the same set of guidelines as every other article. The business has to be notable, the article has to be encyclopeadic and (most importantly) unbiassed. We have the WP:NOR policy to help us here.
So - if presented with such an article for deletion, I would apply 'Notability', 'Lack of bias' and 'No original research' just as for any other article. This will eliminate adverts - and attack articles from business competitors - yet allow articles on companies like SGI, British Leyland and others that I have contributed to - to survive and prosper. WP's rules work perfectly well here - I feel no special need to single out business articles for any kind of special treatment. SteveBaker 19:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: The following question was added when this nomination was new and deleted by Wafulz.

Note: I have no idea how this happened. Possibly an edit conflict or something with my wireless connection I was using at the time. --Wafulz 04:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Optional question from Deskana (talk · contribs):

100% Optional Question 9. Why do you not feel the need to write a longer nomination? It's difficult to decide how to vote if you won't really attempt to sway me to by pointing out why you think you should be an admin. Right now, I'm not convinced you really do if you don't want to write a longer nomination. --Lord Deskana (swiftmend!) 17:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Answered above as question #4.
General comments
  • See SteveBaker's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
  • I tried to get an editor review - but as you can see Wikipedia:Editor review/SteveBaker has been there for several months with no responses.
  • I've been editing Wikipedia for a year and a half and I have 3,100 edits - but more importantly, 1,700 within the main namespace.

Discussion Analysis of SteveBaker's edits using Interiot's wannabe_kate tool. --Richard 06:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support - I encountered this Wikipedian when he was working to develop consensus for the automotive barnstar. I found him open, helpful, and eager to discuss. - jc37 17:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support - It would help your cause if you mentioned having a WP:FA Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 18:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
    In answer to question (2) above, I said: "I did almost all of the work on Mini - taking it from a near-stub and culminating in a front page featured article." - so yeah. I took an article through that entire process. It might interest you to note that I voted a strong 'oppose' to the FA status vote for Computer - even though that was an article I was actively working on...it has to cut both ways! SteveBaker 18:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks. I meant in a summary in your nom statement. My eye must have skipped that part in your answer. 2. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support Well meaning, and meet my criteria. However, on a more serious note, you should consider withdrawing and spend some time becoming more familiar with the community. Best wishes -- danntm T C 21:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. Mike | Talk 21:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. T Rex | talk 22:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support. This is one of those cases where you have to ask yourself: Will Wikipedia benefit or suffer if this user is given the admin tools? I say benefit with little to no chance of abuse. Good luck. -- AuburnPilottalk 23:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support. Was undecided even after a lot of thought and digging through Steve's edits, but AuburnPilot's point was persuasive. Jcam 23:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support. Isn't going to abuse tools, so no reason to oppose. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 23:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  9. Weak Support Wouldn't misuse tools, has experience and the Mini article is extremely beautiful. - Patman2648 08:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support, without a compelling reason not to. Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 13:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support - I'm not prepared to see a candidate potentially suffer an unsuccessful RfA purely because someone is in a foul mood and has to find someone to vote against. I'm fed up of seeing two distinct camps here shoot down good article writers because they don't do much in the way of admin type chores and I'm fed up of seeing good vandal fighters and housekeepers being shot down because they don't write articles. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 13:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  12. Strong Support - per Heligoland. Steve is an excellent contributor, and I am astounded by some of the people that have been shot down in RfA recently. SteveBaker will not misues the tools, he is a good contributor, and once he has a duty to commit to XfD and other administrative stuff I think he will, and with the same dedication he has to his current actions. --Shrieking Harpy......Talk|Count 15:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support a strong contributor who understands policy and will make a fine admin. I encountered Steve during the problems of User:Wiarthurhu (who is now subject to a community ban). Despite incredible provocation, Steve remained calm and dedicated to Wikipedia policies. Gwernol 15:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  14. Weak Support - why not? He isn't saying he's going to change the world, so people are opposing? He's offering to help out with backlogs which require admin privs. 'Nuf said, really... All the same, I think you would make a better candidate given a few more months of solid contributing. Cheers, riana_dzasta 16:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  15. Strong Support - experienced, friendly and has an FA. The only red links in the upload log are things moved to commons, and saved me from having to read yet another BS nom statement --T-rex 16:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support. I see good common sense and a good attitude and approach to the project, and that, in my opinion, is all you need to do the job properly. The points raised below strike me as irrelevant. Edit summaries? Short nomination statement? Little interest in the "community aspect" of the job? I guess next we'll hear that the candidate has failed on occasion to wear green on St. Patrick's day, and then the opposes will really pile in. --RobthTalk 16:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support Definetly, he will benefit the 'pedia, so why oppose? ↔ ANAS - Talk 17:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  18. Weak Support don't see anything very concerning, think he'll probably be ok. Addhoc 19:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  19. Strong support per Heligoland and AuburnPilot. The boring tasks need to be done. JackyR | Talk 19:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support positive attitude and commitment. Rama's arrow 03:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  21. Strong Support -- I'm one of the people usually most likely to cast an oppose vote, but I don't see anything here not to like -- Steve has good experience except in some "process-y" areas like XfD that he's not interested in. He hardly seems like the kind who will now suddenly become the scourge of XfDs, widely abusing his powers after slyly avoiding these processes pre-RfA. Steve has a very clear sense of how he wants to help and how he can help, given admin tools. Steve shows no signs of incivility. Yes, some answers to questions were short, but who needs verbose when short will do? In fact, Steve's brevity seems all of a piece with his very focused goals and viewpoint -- there's a backlog of work and time's a wastin. Put him to work. --A. B. 06:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support my kind of admin - knows there are backlogs and already has the mind to eliminate them. We need more of this type so there will never be unsightly red flags over places like C:CSD and CAT:NS again. Kimchi.sg 07:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support, seems reasonably sensible and diligent, contributions are fine, willing to improve, learn and assist, can't see any indication this user would run amok with the tools.--cjllw | TALK 10:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support solid contributor who wants to help with the pruning of crap? I'll forgive that messily mixed metaphor and support :) Opabinia regalis 05:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support. A little lacking in experience, but a strong focused editor with good reasoning, willingness to learn and seems to know how he can help without the egotistical subtext to some self-noms. Just squeezes into the support column for me. Rockpocket 08:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support. Per Gwernol and Rockpocket. --Pan Gerwazy 12:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support just because I like your answers. Deb 12:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support - give him his own mop Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 17:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support Plenty of edits and good answers to questions. We need more admins to do the more "mundane" work. -- P.B. Pilhet / Talk 19:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support. Low Wikipedia namespace count, but this is balanced by fairly decent Wikipedia talk namespace count. Nothing concerning in editor's history, so unlikely to abuse the tools. Irongargoyle 20:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  31. support why can't he be an admin he seems fit for the job. Cocoaguy 03:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support - will not misuse tools, has said he will use them for tasks he's familiar with, and he's right: we need more admins right now. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 03:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
    I know I already pointed out that we need more admins, but I might like to add that we specifically need more admins who are willing to do the dirty work. Even if Steve were to make a few mistakes as a new admin, that would be normal - but I think he would be just as good as any new starting adminstrator. Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 21:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support. I think this candidate can be trusted not to abuse the tools and be an asset to the project as an admin. From his record, I think we can see that he'll be the type of admin who'll avoid wikipolitics and focus purely on janitorial tasks and backlogs. I think there's space for a few more of that type of admins. Singopo 11:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support for being nice, and per Singopo above. Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 07:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support. No reason to think he'd misuse the tools. Good balance of edits (talk, namespace, etc.). Sufficient general experience. I don't have any problem with an admin who concentrates in some areas and not in others. Not a rude person. Objections based on his short nomination statement are silly, in my opinion. Herostratus 14:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  36. Support - why not show a little trust? He doesn't like WikiPolitics - so what the hell? If he wants the admin tools to actually improve the encyclopaedia for a change, then that's wonderful. His record is good and I see no reason to think he'd go on a rampage. Moreschi 18:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  37. Strong support. Let's see: Steve is interested in writing an encyclopedia (Mini). He's interested in maintaining an encyclopedia (this nomination). The tools would allow him to help maintain the encyclopedia. Seems very obvious to me. Back in 2005, it was unusual to see more than 10 pages at CAT:CSD at the same time; now this count often runs over 200. CAT:NCT has over 1000 images listed. I wish there were more admins interested in actual maintainance work rather than wikipolitics. --user:Qviri 21:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support - good quality contributions and response suggest to me that Wikipedia would benefit from this user having admin status. Warofdreams talk 01:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support good admin candidate. --rogerd 19:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support. DarthVader 05:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support, no reason not to. Proto::type 15:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose. Not enough experience in admin-related tasks, such as XfD, vandalism, or requested page moves. Good contributor, but needs more experience in these areas. Also, I'd recommend for you to use edit summaries more often. --Wafulz 17:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
    My failings over edit summaries are a bad habit - that I work to fix. As for experience - yeah new admins have to go through a learning phase - that's to be expected. If there is a pre-qualification period during which one is expected to work in specific areas - that needs to be better explained. SteveBaker 18:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
    If I may venture a word of advice, you can set your preferences so the page won't save if you don't fill in the edit summary. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
    Oooh! I hadn't seen that. I'll turn it on - thanks! SteveBaker 19:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
    If you spent some time in the next three months working on admin-related tasks I would probably support another RfA- I prefer to see candidates with experience doing assorted admin tasks. It's one thing to say that you'll be able to handle the responsibility, but it's completely different when you demonstrate that you can handle it. --Wafulz 13:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Wafulz. I would like to see more admin-related experience, too. Michael 19:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. Seems like a very good editor, willing to contribute and performing quality work. However, lack of interest in the community aspect of administrator status, edit summary usage, short nomination statement and narrow answers to #1, #3, and #4 are concerns. Would be a good candidate for deletion tools if such a thing existed on its own, but I'm wary about supporting administrator status as it currently exists. -- Renesis (talk) 19:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
    I guess I'm surprised at the way this is going. As far as I can see - the only reason you'd want to refuse people admin rights would be if you think they'd misuse them. Nobody in the 'oppose' column here is saying that. Am I missing something about what you think this is all about? I'm one of those Asperger syndrome people (who are very common on Wikipedia!) - and I'm not good at picking up on sub-texts. Please be explicit about your concerns. SteveBaker 19:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
    You may be right that the only real reason why you'd oppose adminship is worries about "misuse" of tools, but I think you are incorrectly assuming I'm worried that you'd purposely misuse them. You certainly meet the standard as far as work quality, but I am worried you don't quite meet the standard for many other aspects of adminship (not that you couldn't, but more that it seems you don't care to). In your case, its probably unfortunate that access to deletion and maintenance tools are connected to full administrator status, since you state that is the only reason you would like to be an admin. -- Renesis (talk) 20:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
    Yes - you've explained the issue better than I could. I'm not too concerned about the other aspects of adminship - I'd like access to the tools in order that I can better do what I do for Wikipedia. I don't think anyone is denying that I'm doing good work - so why deny me the tools? Well, whatever. SteveBaker 20:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per concerns above. semper fi — Moe 21:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose I hate to use this reason but it actually applies here: "per above." Get involved in some XfDs and vandal fighting and I would consider supporting your next RfA.Wikipediarules2221 00:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose on the grounds of insufficient experience as a non-admin in the processes where administration is needed. --Steve (Slf67) talk 01:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose purely coz this user is the only user I can actually vote against - the other ones are miles ahead in the votes. It bug me when I vote for people and then they splash the news of their success all round the website. Sorry, no offence Steve, I've never encountered you before, but I'm having a huff and you happen to be the one who gets the brunt of this immature antisocial rant of mine. Good luck with the RFA. --Dangherous 10:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    Please pardon my being stunned by that statement (though at least the comment sounded sincere). I wonder, though, should a vote - that claims to have nothing to do with this RfA cantidate - count in determining consensus? - jc37 11:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    I'm implore the closing bureaucrat to remove Dangherous vote from this RfA as it in no way helps build concensus. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 13:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    Forgive for bringing this up if I'm wrong, but this seems to be trying to make a point, and not well either. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    I have restored deleted content related to the !vote below. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose As per others --Dangherous 16:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    Note to closing bureaucrat(s) - This user has previously opposed for spurious reasons [1], repsonded with abusive edit summaries to having his vote struck out for being unactionable, [2], and changed his reasoning to something else spurious to avoid "confrontations." [3]. This user's behavior is at least unconstructive towards reaching consensus, if not downright disruptive. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 17:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    I would like to note that I warned RyanGerbil about harassing other users, yet he has decided not to strike out the highly inappropriate comment above. KazakhPol 22:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
    I haven't struck it out mainly because it is neither inappropriate nor harrassment. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 14:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  8. Strong Oppose. Admins must be able to communicate effectively, and have a basic grasp of community norms; the candidate's pithy "nomination statement" demonstrates dramatic failure in both those respects. Based simply on his conduct here, I'm not at all surprised candidate's conduct has fallen short elsewhere, as the above criticisms show. Xoloz 19:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    I fail to see how the nomination statement merits a strong opposition. This user is clearly dedicated to improving the encyclopedia, and with the number of questions that need to be answered with every RfA these days, nomination statements are almost unnecessary in my opinion. The candidate's answers show he is able to communicate well, and not every admin communicates extensively with other users. I'm not as active as I once was, but even when I was closing over twenty TfDs a day, I rarely needed to interact with other users. I feel that this candidate will be able to communicate satisfactorily when needed, but active communication with other users is not a part of every admin's work. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 19:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    If the candidate were at all familiar with RfA, he would know that short nomination statements for self-noms have been considered discourteous in the past; while it is true that the average candidate now has more questions to answer at RfA, trying to alter the community standards by means of a "breaching experiment" is not a good idea. Either his nom. is a breaching experiment, or it simply shows a lack of effort/understanding, and both of these are strong negatives, in my opinion.
    With due respect to you, Ryan, if you've managed to find a way to close XfDs without interacting with others much, I do believe that you're the exception rather than the rule. Generally, admins get questioned regularly about nearly everything under the sun, and a short self-nom. statement (which I do consider a semi-severe lapse in wiki-etiquette) gives me no confidence in the candidate's ability to respond adequately. Nothing personal -- that's just a major negative indicator, in my opinion. Xoloz 19:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    Just to clairify... you are strongly opposing this person due to wiki-ettiquitte? And failure to communicate effectively? I cannot accept you are acting in good faith with this. Period. --Elaragirl ||||||Talk|Count 21:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    So you're openly admitting to violating policy, then? Please, think before you type. – Chacor 15:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
    Well I believe that Xoloz is acting in good faith... I don't get how you can think that Xoloz isn't. --Lord Deskana (swiftmend!) 22:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    The candidate is not beholden to RfA to be courteous to superfluous protocol. What matters is the candidate's record of service and answers to the questions. The candidate is not trying to "experiment" with anything -- he did what was required. If an introductory paragraph is required, then it should be so-noted clearly and explicitly. Unwritten rules are not grounds for opposing a candidate, and if you're going to argue that the candidate is being "discourteous," you are simply propogating bureaucratic red-tape. --Wolf530 (talk) 15:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  9. Underexperienced and per Xoloz. Moral support tho. Do more adminny stuff, get someone to nominate you and should have no trouble securing the community trust. - crz crztalk 21:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose per Wafulz and Xoloz TigerShark 00:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  11. Per the very well-reasoned Xoloz. – Chacor 09:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose I see no problems that can't be fixed, so I expect to support in the future, but for now tacit knowledge is lacking. ~ trialsanderrors 18:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  13. I have to agree with Xoloz here. (Radiant) 10:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  14. OpposeI agree with the above-he says too little in his responses, and what there is has little to do with anything that necessitates adminship to do. --teh tennisman 21:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  15. Weak Oppose. Contribs look great, but I'd like to see more pre-admin janitorial tasks before awarding this user the tools. The user should get a good feel for this kind of work before committing to become an administrator. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 11:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose per Wafulz and Xoloz. Also it seems that the candidate doesn't take criticism well, as per his response to User:AQu01rius's neutral vote. Dionyseus 22:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose per Wafulz and Xoloz. Not enough WP-space edits. Spend more time hanging around AFD and other xFD discussions. You look like a good candidate. Come back in 3 months and I'll support your RFA if you have more experience in admin-related tasks. --Richard 06:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  18. Oppose Not for any particular reason, just felt like it. Ashibaka tock 20:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
    Ashi, I know you're an admin, but becoming a sysop can be a big deal for a lot of people. Perhaps you could be a bit more specific than just you "felt like it." Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 21:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
    It doesn't seem to be a big deal for him, since he didn't even write a nomination statement. :) Yeah, WP:POINT, sorry. Ashibaka tock 21:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
    Everything you need to know about why he wants to be an admin and what his credentials are is right at the top of the page under "questions to the candidate." I don't know what more you'd like to see? --user:Qviri 21:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  19. Weak Oppose: The contributions check out for me, however the responses are really small and other reasons as per above.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 01:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  20. Weak oppose. I went looking through Steve's history and found a couple of edits (1 & 2) related to User:Wiarthurhu that concern me. While I understand that the situation lead to Wiarthurhu being banned and that Steve's temperment was tested, he didn't keep his cool in a way I'd expect an admin to. --Brad Beattie (talk) 06:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  21. Oppose I am sorry, but an admin needs to take critisism well, if it is accurate or not. You appear to be taking alot of the critisisms here personally. You seem to be an excellent editor. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  22. Oppose-Per above comments--SUIT 21:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  23. Oppose I am quite dismayed to see how many spelling and grammar errors were made in the question and answer section. This shows a lack of attention to detail. Administration is a skill that requires good attention to detail. LittleOldMe 14:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
    If I may respond to your comment... in general I'm much more interested in the content of the writing rather than how much effort he's put into perfecting his spelling and grammar. Language is about communication, and you can do that without being absolutely perfect. With that said, however, I think this guy's spelling and grammar is fine. Perhaps the "spelling mistakes" that you refer to are his British English? You do realize that they spell the suffix "-ize" as "-ise", right? That's the only irregularity in spelling I see on a quick glance, and I'd encourage you to reconsider your vote if this is the sole reason you voted oppose. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 15:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
    Alright, I jumped the gun. You're Irish, so you do realize that British English exists. Still, I actually pasted his answers to the questions into word and manually spell-checked it, and found seven spelling errors, two of them repeats. Is it really that big of a deal? =/ —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 15:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
    I would say it is not big deal. This is a wiki, and contributions with spelling mistakes are welcome. I don't see how this effects one abilities at admin. But then I have terrible spelling, so I am biased. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
    I think it's a big deal because answering the questions for an RFA is like writing a CV. You want to show yourself in the best light possible. Spelling errors say that you are either too sloppy to care or too lazy to cut and paste to a spell checker. LittleOldMe 16:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  24. Oppose. Your enthusiasm and willingness to help Wikipedia is appreciated. However, I am of the opinion that adminstrators need to be well rounded, and capable of performing all administrator tasks should they be required. Administrators typically cannot just "stay out of the limelight and perform maintenance tasks", as they typically get tied up in other things. This is not to say that they have to perform all tasks (as I myself don't), but I believe that I am capable of performing any task required of an administrator should the need arise. If this user participates more in XfDs and other related items, I will be happy to support him. --Lord Deskana (swiftmend!) 15:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral for the time being. I'd like to see the user expand his self-nomination to explain what exactly he thinks he can contribute as an admin. "I'd be willing to help clear backlogs for a few hours a day" seems a little too vague. Perhaps the candidate can explain his history with such areas as well. Metros232 17:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
    I've expanded a little on that. I trust this answers your question. SteveBaker 17:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Inexperience as others have mentioned. RfA is in good faith of course, will reconsider in a few months. - Mailer Diablo 19:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral Inexperienced candidate, as above. Why not go to Esperanza where they have a good admin coaching programme? You can also help by patrolling the new and recent changes pages, reverting vandalism found there, or tagging pages for speedy deletion, along with warning editors that this has been done and warning vandals too. Persistent offenders can be reported to WP:AIV for admin action. You can also help at the Help and Reference desks too. There are plenty of opportunities to gain experience in admin duties without the tools, in order for you to be ready for them when the time comes. Withdraw this RfA and work on these areas for 3-4 months. (aeropagitica) 21:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
    OK - I guess I should take some of this advice. I'm not sure patrolling recent edits is going to help though - I can fill most of my free hours undoing vandalism in the articles on my watch list without having to look elsewhere! There really needs to be a single mouse-click button for 'revert vandalism'. SteveBaker 22:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
    Actually, this has already been proposed, and there is currently a major poll going on about whether this feature should be enabled. The problem is, imagine how much fun the vandals could have with that button, so there needs to be a procedure to guarantee that only trustworthy and careful editors would have access to it. Newyorkbrad 22:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. Neutral: A year and a half is good enough for a self-nom, but, boy, do those summaries (32% main/61% minor) need some working on! --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 22:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
    I don't see why that matters...it's totally beyond me why you'd think that would make someone a worse admin. But anyway - since I've turned on the widget that stops you from saving without entering a summary - that's a solved problem. So why are you not voting for me because of it? SteveBaker 17:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    WHY should edit summaries matter for an administrator? I seriously want someone to explan this to me. Appearantly, putting together good articles, keeping cool, and working to make the Wiki better don't matter -- your edit summaries do. FFS, 90% of the time they are things like "fix typo",and frankly I can think of a LOT of things he does better than some editors. --Shrieking Harpy......Talk|Count 17:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    Some RfA commenters believe edit summary usage is symbolic of a candidate's attention to detail, and they really are useful to RC patrollers. But here the candidate has agreed to turn on the Preferences option that automatically prompts for a summary when one forgets to insert it, and hopefully that resolves the issue. Newyorkbrad 21:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    In response to Elaragirl, getting into the habit of using edit summaries is, in general, good practice as an editor. For an admin, it helps because admins have to fill in block logs, deletion logs and things like that. Having had experience writing edit summaries helps when it comes to doing that. It also helps to view things from the user's point of view - when filling in a block log or deletion log, an admin should remember who will be reading it, and what information they might need. Try browsing through deletion logs or block logs sometime, and see how easy it is to follow up the log to find the relevant pages if you want to find out what happened in a particular case. Then you'll get an idea of the usefulness of edit summaries and log summaries. Carcharoth 01:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. Neutral. 6% of the user edits is in Wikipedia namespace. Not impressive for an admin candidate. Once that area is improved, this should be a strong candidate. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 05:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    Why does the percentage of edits matter? That would mean that if I do vast amounts of work in the article space, that would push down the percentage of WP space edits - even though the absolute number might still be high. The percentage is a meaningless measure. All you are doing is guaranteeing that more admins are less in touch with day to day article production and spend more of their time arguing about the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. Article production is why we are all here - it's A Good Thing. I told you that I have little interest in the politics of WP - I just want to improve articles and having admin tools will improve my productivity and give me the opportunity to help to knock down some of those backlogs. If I'm to be voted down for doing that then Wikipedia's problems are deeper than I thought! SteveBaker 17:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    Chill buddy. He raises a valid point. For somebody who's going to be entrusted with very powerful tools, you don't have very many edits reflecting the kinds of tasks that these tools require. I understand your frustration, but you should assume good faith and try to take comments like these to heart. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 11:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. Neutral, lacks of experience. Try again in six months and we shall see. Also, you may like to do more admin work. --Terence Ong (C | R) 03:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  7. Neutral agree with Ter. This user's skills can be fine-tuned a bit. Glad to see he's taken the initiative with the edit summaries. I think I'd support in a few months if you start getting involved with the backlogs now. (AFD, for example, dosn't alwase require an admin to close). ---J.S (t|c) 05:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  8. Merovingian ※ Talk 05:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  9. Neutral, I'd like to see more Wikipedia contributions in XfD but otherwise a good candidate. I don't want to oppose because I think that SteveBaker wouldn't mess up as an admin, but I don't want to support for the lack of pre-administrative tasks (I mean AFD, MFD reporting users to be blocked, CSD things like that) undertaken. James086 Talk | Contribs 02:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  10. Neutral. Needs some more experience, but not so much that I'm going to flat out oppose this nomination. RFerreira 06:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  11. Neutral. Agree per directly above. But a good editor though indeed. D•a•r•k•n•e•s•s•L•o•r•d•i•a•n•••CCD••• 19:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  12. Neutral The lack of experience is a major concern here. However, I feel that this user does not deserve an oppose opinion as he is an excellent contributor to this project. In the meantime, do not lose heart because of this RfA and try again after three to six months. --Siva1979Talk to me 20:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  13. Neutral - Don't know this user. --evrik (talk) 22:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
    Comment I'm not one to question responses on RfAs, let alone a neutral, but this user has voted in the exact same way on every single pending RfA within 5 mins. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] May I suggest getting to know the users? Reading their answers? Viewing their contribs? If people only voted for people they know first hand, there would be a serious problem passing RfAs. -- AuburnPilottalk 00:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
    Comment Agreed. I believe all these evrik neutrals should be deleted, for there is no purpose in it and it does not seem to be helping the RfA. D•a•r•k•n•e•s•s•L•o•r•d•i•a•n•••CCD••• 18:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  14. Neutral. I think the editor needs to learn a bit more about the process. The short self-nomination I think-- is one thing that points to what I perceive as a short-coming. Nephron  T|C 04:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  15. Neutral Good user, but still needs to improve in many aspects of Wikipedia (as per Oppose comments). Nishkid64 20:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  16. Neutral per all the Opposes. Sharkface217 03:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  17. Neutral. I'm not happy with the candidate's assertions that Oppose votes '[need] to be better explained', but that isn't important enough to Oppose myself. Cynical 19:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
    I did not say that the opposition vote needed to be better explained. I said that the criteria one was expected to meet in order to stand a chance at getting admin privilages need to be better explained. I believe I met all of the criteria listed in the various places where these are laid out - but it seems there are other, more mysterious conditions that one is expected to meet that are not explained anywhere. Those should indeed be better explained. I've been taken to task for writing too short an application (not because I missed some specific item of information - just that it was too short). I'm happy to provide more information if needed - but simply writing more text for no particular reason seems odd. Conciseness is generally considered to be a good quality. Where are the "Your application should be no less than 500 words" (or whatever is an appropriate length) instructions? I'm told that having too many blank edit summaries is a sufficiently critical thing that it's enough to cause one to be voted down - again - this is never explained. It seems that the RATIO (?!?) of main article edits to WP space edits is critical...that seems totally nonsensical - but a lot of people are voting on that basis. How can you possibly expect to get sufficient Admins to do the work - if you have all of these dark mysterious reasons by which it can be denied? SteveBaker 00:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
    It's been my experience in reading RfAs that the "criteria" is (or should be) about trust. However, asking how a person determines trust is similar to asking a gambler to how to detrmine if something is lucky. It's going to vary from user to user. It can be frustrating when you receive opposes for things which aren't against guidelines or policy, but AFAIK there is not much else you can do about it, than to be understanding and keep moving forward. : ) - jc37 01:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.