Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/S@bre

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by WOSlinker (talk | contribs) at 15:52, 11 August 2018 (fix font tag). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

S@bre

Nomination

FINAL (83/1/5); closed 19:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

 Bureaucrat note: Due to special circumstances concering a deprecated character in the candidate's username, the promotion was carried out by me using my Steward access on the Meta-Wiki (see link) Redux (talk) 19:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

S@bre (talk · contribs) – It is with great pride that I nominate Sabre for adminship. This here limey joined the land of lost wiki souls back in the waning weeks of 2005 and is a user who is here to edit, not cause drama. Most active in the realm of video games, he has two FAs and a Featured Topic nomination to his name, with a few more bronze stars in the works. He is active on WT:VG and is always available to provide input or advice. He knows his policies and has been instrumental in turning steaming piles of video game cruft of unknown notability into articles the 'pedia can be proud of, and is willing to dig in to even difficult projects (like mine). While he has less "admin-type activity" than many candidates who pass through these gates, he has the knowledge, the skills, and the temperament to deal with even the most troublesome users fairly and calmly. In my many months of knowing him I have never seen him the least bit ruffled; a stiff upper lip and all that :) Most tellingly, he wouldn't nominate himself for the admin bit. Without further ado, bring in the accused! --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: As requested by Gary King, I'm accepting this nomination with an "argh matey!" -- Sabre (talk) 20:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I'd consider myself an admin "on call", I'd try to respond to areas where people are in need of a neutral third opinion that may require administrative action; I would go where needed. With WP:VG and the odd unrelated articles I occasionally stumble upon, I like to try to inject an opinion where I feel I can add something valuable. As an admin, I would imagine this would extend to responses to issues at WP:AN/I and WP:AN. As someone who seems to run into the need to move articles on occasion during clean-ups and rewrites, I'd like to assist at WP:RM, which I notice is in need of administrators to help. I would also get involved with the WP:AFD process, particularly involving newer articles that are subject to an AfD. -- Sabre (talk) 20:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: This tends to differ. I consider myself an article writer first and foremost, I count my rewrites and large scale cleanups as my best contributions, but I could not honestly name an article that I feel consistently represents my best; this is because I find the whole thing a learning process, usually I feel the results of each article I cleanup or rewrite are better than the last one I dealt with. At the moment, I'm on a slight high after uploading a complete rewrite of Steve Purcell just yesterday, even though I know the prose can be improved (I don't consider myself a good copyeditor) and the sources strengthened. Although there are traditionalist elements on Wikipedia who may think that the articles I've improved aren't "proper" encyclopedic subjects when compared to things like history or science, I'm still proud of my GA and FA accomplishments as many of them articles that were previously rather underdeveloped and in need of a helping hand to get going. -- Sabre (talk) 20:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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: I haven't really come into any conflicts in recent memory, although I recall a couple of instances when the "stiff upper lip" had quivered and caused me to get somewhat stressed. There have been one or two occasions of unwarranted outbursts when something gets pushed too far with me, but I've generally attempted to rectify situations with the users concerned on a one-to-one basis away from article content. This hasn't happened in quite a while though. I have come into conflict with users who could be classified as deletionists and inclusionists. In my early days on Wikipedia, writing articles on StarCraft fiction, I came into conflict with deletionists due to my writing style not meeting up to WP:N or WP:WAF standards which on occasion dissolved into a shouting match. I eventually began to get to grips with guidelines and consulted with Deckiller, who was writing a new version of WP:FICT at the time, to properly rectify the user's concerns with the articles. I like to think my efforts were successful.
Sometime ago, I imagine around a year ago, I had a brief stint with AfD as my main form of contribution, where I came into conflict with inclusionists with whom I disagreed. After realising that continuing some discussions would simply degrade into unneeded arguments, I disengaged from consistent AfD participation. Now, I focus far more on writing but I still monitor AfDs and inject opinions on occasion when I feel I can properly add something to the discussion; I consider myself to hold a mostly moderate position between the two viewpoints of inclusionist and deletionist. -- Sabre (talk) 20:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Hipocrite

4. Have you been involved in a long running dispute as a neutral third party? How did you address it? If not, could you please pick a current long running dispute and discuss how you might help address it?
A: This is not be the kind of dispute that would require administrative action, but the most recent dispute that would fall into the category of "long running" was a slightly heated discussion over at Talk:Command & Conquer, which had been running since November 08. I responded to a request at WT:VG for outside comments in a content organisation dispute involving the factions of the Command & Conquer franchise, which had become stalemated between those who wanted to delete, those who wanted to merge, and those who wanted to keep.
I tried to assist the direction of the conversation by suggesting that those who want to keep those articles clean them up to present the fiction as coherently as possible under WP:WAF, while sources attesting to individual notability were searched for. That way, if the sources could be found, the articles could be easily enhanced with these sources, and perhaps be ready for an upgrade in rating. If not, then the articles could be merged as "mini-articles" into a general faction list/article. If merged done properly, there would still be significant information on the factions, within the notability of the general concept of C&C factions, which could be attested to. The articles would also be instantly ready to spin-out again should sources for the notability of individual characters were made available later.
This was meant to compromise between removing the material and this interpretation that merging equates to deletion. I based this off of the approach I adopted for the corresponding StarCraft article, which is structured as though it was three mini-articles that can be quickly spun-out again should the sources become available in the future. -- Sabre (talk) 21:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Malleus Fatuorum

5. Could you outline your view on the civility policy and its uneven application across the project?
A: The civility policy to me is simple. Treat others as you would have them treat you. This covers most areas of the civility policy: assume people are trying to help the project (however misguided one may think others can be in some cases) unless the evidence blatantly suggests the opposite, don't turn the place into a battleground (disengage if there is the risk of doing so), remain polite, try not to raise to bait or lower yourself to someone else's level when you are targeted with incivility yourself. To me, there should not be uneven application of the policy, the idea of treating people with respect isn't one that should be compromised on; treat them with dignity even when you disagree with them. There will be occasions when an editor may just snap after being pushed a little far (I've been there), but this is usually excusable if regret or an apology is presented later. Editors who routinely breach basic civility should be warned, and if consistently persistent, blocked and ultimately pernamently banned. -- Sabre (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I perhaps ought to have been clearer. I was referring to this. Do you agree that administrators ought not to be issuing blocks for behaviour they themselves are guilty of? How would you deal with a fellow administrator who had behaved in such a way? --Malleus Fatuorum 00:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say admins who block for incivility whilst being incivil themselves in the same case or elsewhere probably should have their adminship reviewed. Personally, I'd try approaching them one-to-one first, requesting that they act more in accordance with the responsibility of their position. If that fails to rectify the situation, then perhaps a user RfC and in irredeemable of cases, the opening of an RFDA to remove them. I hope that helps better answer the question. -- Sabre (talk) 00:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It perhaps answers the question, but it doesn't address the problem. Would you support the gargantuan effort necessary to desysop a fellow admin who had been demonstrated to be guilty of the same offence that he had blocked another editor for or not? Or would you close ranks and protect your own? --Malleus Fatuorum 00:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'd pursue the desysop. Having one set of users be able to get away with things other users are blocked for is not in the least helpful and reflects badly on the project. -- Sabre (talk) 00:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for clarifying that. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Q's from flaminglawyer

6. In your own words, what's the difference between a block and a ban? Also, include a real-life analogy between the two. It must involve a cat.
A. Both are preventative measures to prevent damage to Wikipedia, although one is more serious than the other. Blocks are put into place to as a deterrant against detrimental behaviour to the project done by a user (ie vandalism, incivility) after other methods of dissuasion has been tried, while bans are there as a last ditch method of removing persistently disruptive editors who have shown no interest in changing their ways. I'd use the analogy of the police, with the extremely poor inclusion of a cat. If someone beats up a cat, they may be warned and briefly detained by the police—the block. If they then attempt to kill the cat, they are arrested and prosecuted—the ban. -- Sabre (talk) 00:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from DGGMango (based on one Mangojuice asked me at my own AfD)

7: Suppose you looking around for XfD debates to close and you come across one that has, say 6 favoring keeping and 2 favoring deletion, and you are quite sure the article does not meet the present notability criteria. How would you close? DGG (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A.: It depends on the actual statements delivered by the eight participants. If the six favouring keeping were providing good arguments, producing sources and the like that would strengthen the article, then I would close as a keep, even if I may still have doubts. If the keep arguments were not very convincing, perhaps involving "I like it", "not doing any harm" sorts of comments, with properly put together deletion statements, and if I could not see any manner for concerns about the article to be reconciled, I would be inclinded to close as a delete. However, with a 75% support for keeping the article, in the latter case I would more likely see if there was a good destination to merge or redirect the article, thereby allowing it to be recreated with ease in the future if sources became available, or a transwiki. I tend to favour merging more that than deletion nowadays, if there is a suitable place for the information to be accomodated. In early days though, until I would be fully comfortable with closing controversial AfDs, I would merely inject my opinion into the AfD discussion and allow a more experienced admin to interpret the results. -- Sabre (talk) 15:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Optional questions from Foxy Loxy Pounce!

I have noticed that your edit summary usage in the main space is at 95% for major edits and 63% for minor edits, I find that to be an OK number but would like to ask you the following questions regarding the edit summary.

8. Why is an edit summary important when editing?
A. It's the primary tool with which you convey your changes to articles to other editors. If anyone's like me, they generally prefer having a clue to what's changed on their watchlist before pressing the "diff" button. It also helps mark up article milestones on an article's history page; its not very helpful if you upload a complete rewrite and don't say. -- Sabre (talk) 11:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Is an edit summary more important in a situation where the edit may be controversial?
A. Yes, as it allows you a brief chance to quickly summarise your reasoning for a change rather than simply stating what the change is. -- Sabre (talk) 11:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. As an admin, would you commit to turning on the "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" option in your preferences or maintain a 99% or above edit summary usage?
A. Hmm, didn't know that existed; I have no problems with turning that on, or working to get edit summary usage up to that level. -- Sabre (talk) 11:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from xeno

11. As an administrator, you will come across some extremely vulgar language and often come under attack for your actions. You will most likely have to deal with some fairly troublesome users. The users you block will sometimes ask to be unblocked. Please review the very NSFW scenario outlined here and describe how you would respond to the IP's request to be unblocked.
A: I would decline the unblock request. I would inform the IP that their past behaviour was entirely unacceptable, and referring them to their behaviour after the 31 hour block had exceeded, I would state that I do not have the confidence to believe they would not start vandalising again, despite the single seemingly reasonable edit, especially as that is all they've done in their time thus far. My conclusion would be that the block they currently have is only temporary, and that if they are truly serious to begin constructive editing when the one week block expires, then they are more than welcome to. However, I would warn that if they start vandalising, insulting other users or otherwise being disruptive again after that block expires, we may very well take them up on the offer to block them permanently, quickly. -- Sabre (talk) 21:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from OrangeMarlin

12. Do you have any experience or knowledge in the various medical and science articles on this project?
A: Short answer, no. Its not an area I've editted in, am particularly interested in, or am ever likely to start getting involved with. For administrative tasks beyond really basic stuff in areas (such as uncontroversial moves and the like), I would feel inclined to pass onto more experienced admins in those areas if possible. I would feel instantly disadvantaged dealing with any science and medical article (as I do answering the next two questions), as I know nothing about the subject.-- Sabre (talk) 16:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Please explain the difference between NPOV and science in medical and science articles?
A: As I have no experience of these sorts of articles, I am unlikely to give you the answer you are after, but my understanding is that the "neutral" point of view within science is the majority/mainstream view held by professionals and recounted in reliable sources. Dissenting views may be major enough to warrant inclusion, although fringe theories and the like are usually only relevant in articles concerning those theories, not for general use in other articles. -- Sabre (talk) 16:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. Please state how you intend to manage situations where civil, but POV-pushing editors are in conflict with NPOV specifically in science and medical articles.
A: Likewise, as I have no experience in science, I cannot give a decent answer for this. Assuming two contradictory POV's that can be adequately sourced and aren't professionally considered fringe viewpoints, I imagine the best solution may be to attempt to reconcile both editor's views within article content, presenting the information not as fact but as opinion (ie, instead of "x = z", something like "a says x = z, but b says y = z"), thus preserving a neutral presentation. If they are fringe viewpoints, NPOV would require them to be covered very briefly, or not at all. However, if the conflict is remaining civil (ie, on the talk page and not edit warring), no administrative involvement is needed; a mere suggestion to broaden discussion within the appropriate Wikiproject may help settle the situation. I personally would not like to attempt to be a neutral party within an area where I know practically nothing, such as science; objectivity isn't easy to get if you can't come from an informed standpoint.-- Sabre (talk) 16:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from KP Botany

15. What activity do you see as needing another administrator at AN/I? I personally think AN/I has too many administrators, while other boards, less public maybe, too few, such as WP:BLP.
A: I hadn't seen myself getting too involved over at AN/I, only interjecting in the odd situation where I feel I could properly help. As you say, its generally covered by a lot of other administrators, and they tend to cover the area quite well most of the time (or have the whole thing blown out of proportion). I didn't really known of places like BLP/N—thanks for pointing them out—thinking about it, I would probably be more useful over at those more content-focused lesser known noticeboards like BLP/N. They are more in line with my wish to help with the maintenance and writing sides of things than the more editor action-focused AN/I -- Sabre (talk) 11:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
16. Would being an administrator detract from your article writing time on Wikipedia?
A: I hope not. I've seen other administrators happily juggle between writing and admin stuff (to me, the nominator, Mr. Fuchs, is a decent example of this), while other admins engage in nothing other than admin stuff. I don't want to be the latter, my enjoyment and reason for being on this site is to write. -- Sabre (talk) 11:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from Smallman12q

17.How would you use your admin powers to settle video game disputes/edit wars?
In most cases regarding video games, administrative action shouldn't be necessary, my experience is that editors can work out problems without administrative action if got to a talk page or the WP:VG talk page if wider opinion is needed. Many disputes in video games often revolve around policy interpretation and referencing, therefore bringing issues to a wider forum can help hammer out a consensus more efficiently than back-and-forth edit warring ever will. I don't think that using administrative powers to force a settlement in a content dispute is a good idea—I may inject my views into the discussion, but using admin powers to enforce my views would be wrong. Any administrative action should be aimed at bringing the editors to the talk page to discuss the dispute and stop an edit war. I imagine the chief admin power here would be page protection. Blocking editors would only become necessary in extreme cases, often for continual editwarring and breaches of 3RR. -- Sabre (talk) 00:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
18.Could you in your own words explain what you believe to be the ethical standards of Wikipedia?
Neutrality. Content should be neutral and not attempt to take sides in an argument—lest we end up like Conservapedia. We should merely present the facts and the reliably published views (without giving undue weight). We don't categorically state "Hitler was an evil man", but we present the facts and allow the reader to reach their own conclusion. A pursuit of neutrality in Wikipedia will ultimately give a nice net result of balanced and helpful content for editors and, more essentially, readers.
19.When is WP:IGNORE acceptable?
In small cases, IAR may turn up more frequently than expected. Most new articles won't automatically meet verifiability, sourcing, manual of style, and all the many other policies/guidelines instantly, so to an extent they are temporarily ignored as the article is put together. In larger cases, which I suspect is the spirit of this question, IAR should only be used in rather rare cases, and is valid when common sense and logic says different from the policy/guideline. I would prefer to see a decent justification when a guideline is ignored (something like "I don't like the policy/guideline so I'm going to ignore it" doesn't count). However, I personally haven't had the need to IAR in my editing, it just hasn't turned up much. -- Sabre (talk) 14:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


General comments

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

Discussion

The suspense is killing me :) Gary King (talk) 21:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They seem to be treating it as a special case given the RfA, and have bumped the end date forward to 18 February. -- Sabre (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  1. Support No problems, certaintly not going to delete the main page, and should be a net positive, support.--Giants27 TC 20:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Per Giants27 and even if he deletes the main page it will provide some relief from the deadly tedium around here. Hm. Which way is the main page?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. + Keegantalk 20:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Abso-sixeffsees-lutely.  GARDEN  20:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. (edit conflict) From what I've seen, he knows policy and procedures well enough. A sample of his AFD contributions looked good. Does article work. Civil and clueful. It's a green light from me. Useight (talk) 20:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Strong support. Wizardman 21:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Great with video game articles, good AFD work. Seen him everywhere, but no interactions, so this is kind of a moral support... lol. Ceran→//forge 21:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. Had a good rummage through his contributions and found absolutely nothing worth complaining about and a lot to recommend him. Looks like a really excellent contributor who would wield admin tools effectively. ~ mazca t|c 21:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Excellent candidate. While he may not have the usual requisite experience in admin issues, he has enough common sense/CLUE to know what to do. Also, feel like making a userpage for me? NuclearWarfare (Talk) 21:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support A calm editor who has done lots of good work (in the video game area). A good role model. – sgeureka t•c 21:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Well on the way to the 100 club support per the above. He is quite simply an editor who gets stuff done and keeps it cool. --Izno (talk) 21:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In 2008, the better candidates got fewer supports than the others, because people are more likely to show up when it's a close vote. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 00:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you're no fun. :( --Izno (talk) 20:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Will be a great administrator. LittleMountain5 21:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Will be an asset to the community. Good AFD work. Wisdom89 (T / C) 21:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support - SimonKSK 21:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Did not describe entering a dispute as a "neutral third party." But at least he's willing to take a position, so tentative support.Hipocrite (talk) 21:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Been here a while, lots of good contributions, a bit light on edit summary usage. Good nomination support. Admin tools will benefit project. --NrDg 22:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. bibliomaniac15 22:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support - ARGH MATEY — neuro(talk) 22:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. I recognize his name from somewhere, and didn't have a "bad gut feeling". There isn't any real reason to oppose. Master&Expert (Talk) 22:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support; no reason to oppose, and excellent answers to the questions. I don't agree with his answer to the civility question, since we have different standards of how we'd like people to treat us (some want people to be nice, some want people to tie them down, pour hot wax on their chests and beat them with rulers) but that is a problem of opinion, not judgement. I'm a member of the first group, myself. Ironholds (talk) 22:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support – cool head, excellent content contributions, has clue. Net positive. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 22:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. I think I clicked on him some time ago and I didn't warn him, so I guess I was impressed. Contribs look good, answers too and no warning signs flash, so Support from me. Oh and he does like Sam & Max judging by his recent contribs, which demonstrates very good taste indeed. In that spirit: <I would add some Sam & Max quote here but they are all too funny to select a single one >. SoWhy 23:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 23:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - I've worked with S@bre on a handful of articles (most notably The Orange Box and I've always been impressed by his natural ability to work well with others both in WP:VG and elsewhere. I'm confident that he'll be careful and thoughtful in any actions he may take as an admin, just as he's been careful and thoughtful in the work I've carried out with him. The only dissapointment I have from this entire nomination is that he didn't contact me first, as I'd have offered to co-nom him! Many thanks, Gazimoff 23:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't feel bad Gazi, I kinda' jumped this on him :P --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Thought-you-were-already-an-admin Support Wow, I did not see this rfa coming, as I always assumed you had adminship. Goes to show you how much attention I've been paying to the wiki lately. At any rate, good luck! :) TomStar810 (Talk) 23:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Here comes a WP:100 supports support (sorry a bit random...) per my RfA Criteria and your contribs... I thought you were already an admin...! K50 Dude R♥CKS! 00:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. I'm trusting on the basis of the candidate's answer to my Q #5. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. — R2 01:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support No problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 01:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support: Good editor, knows what he's doing. No problems here. Chamal talk 02:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support per my RFA criteria - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 03:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Of course - I see nothing wrong. Xclamation point 05:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 06:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weapons and equipment of the Tau Empire (Warhammer 40,000), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Gex enemies and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devouring One. Seems to have a good handle on notability criteria, and no evidence that they would abuse the tools. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]
    That's part of the problem, i.e. using disputed notability as basis that concerns me. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support per User:A Nobody -- Agathoclea (talk) 11:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I opposed. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 18:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh, I think Agathoclea was being sarcastic. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is always amusing, i.e. taking issue with an oppose for whatever reason by using that approach... Best, --A NobodyMy talk 19:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. No question at all. Trusilver 17:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support - User:Agathoclea beat me to it. On top of that, demonstrates a level head and active involvement with the community. --EEMIV (talk) 18:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Beat you to what, making an incivil support? Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There's nothing uncivil about the support, in my opinion. That it was because of you may not be because of how you opposed but the evidence you provided that Agathoclea interpreted in a manner opposite to you. --Izno (talk) 20:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps and I suppose that would be a more acceptable interpretation. Okay, take care! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. Nothing but good experiences with this user. FlyingToaster 18:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. Beneficial contributor, knows his way around the place well enough. Pagrashtak 20:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Strong support - Amazing amount of article work. iMatthew // talk // 20:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Great track and has been around since Dec 2005 and feel the project will benefit with the user getting the tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. His track records makes him appear trustworthy. Rosiestep (talk) 23:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. Looks good to me. Malinaccier (talk) 00:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Fine fr33kman -s- 04:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. No reason to oppose. --Aaroncrick(Tassie talk) 05:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There have been some questionable AfD arguments that do give one pause. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. Solid answers and contributions. Grsz11 05:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. Good interactions with this user in the past. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 06:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support rootology (C)(T) 06:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support: Intelligent, helpful, dedicated, experienced; all looks good! Maedin\talk 14:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support Seen and liked Sabre's work, seen and liked Sabre's answers. That's good enough for me. -- Mike (Kicking222) 15:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support nothing wrong here. —macy 17:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support This candidate's views on AfD may differ from mine. I don't think that difference means he will be a bad administrator. Protonk (talk) 18:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support I see no problems with the user's contributions and answers to questions. Clearly a net positive. Also per my RfA criteria Foxy Loxy Pounce! 23:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  54. support I do not see anything wrong. Everyone active in AfD says things other users disagree with--in practice, it's a place where argumentative discussions, are acceptable. DGG (talk) 02:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support: I can appreciate a good cat analogy. I just felt bad for the cat. Great candidate. Law shoot! 03:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. Majoreditor (talk) 05:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. Seen you around, thought you were an admin already. I really like your attitude in dealing with others, even when disagreeing. p.s. I'm a dog kind of person, so the cat analogy is fine with me :) --Chasingsol(talk) 11:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support I would normally oppose based on most of your status, answers, etc, but one thing stuck out - you stated that you wanted to be a neutral third party. Very few admin effectively do this, let alone want to do this. You do not seem to be involved in any partisan topics, ideas, etc, so you might actually be able to accomplish this. But remember, if you back down on this idea and start becoming a partisan hack, I will call for your head. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 15:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support, no reason not to. Stifle (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support, will be a good administrator. --Carioca (talk) 19:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support No objections. America69 (talk) 00:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support - I've seen him around, seems like a strong candidate; no objections. Parsecboy (talk) 05:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support - wow, what an answer to Q6. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 17:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support - I trust the nominator's judgement. Graham Colm Talk 19:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not the nominators's judgement that's being examined here, but the candidate's. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I trust the nominator's judgement that the candidate will be a good admin. Graham Colm Talk 21:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Each to their own. I prefer to make my own mind up. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support Excellent and honest answers to questions 12-14. Artichoker[talk] 20:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support - Garion96 (talk) 22:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support No reason not to. Razorflame 17:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support - Sabre knows his way around Wikipedia and will not abuse the tools. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support - I've seen this user over at WT:VG, he is a strong faithful editor in all areas of WP and would be able to execute the tools of an administrator to the advantage of Wikipedia.--TRUCO 19:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support. Fully qualified candidate, no issues. The concerns raised by the opposer and by several of the neutral commenters are without merit. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not your place to comment on the merit or otherwise of the opposer's or neutral commentators' views, only on the candidate. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Speak, New York Brad, speak, even if you're speaking against me. --KP Botany (talk) 21:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wrong, NYB is free to state if he finds the views of others lacking, in his opinion. Just as we all are. Gazimoff 22:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In your opinion evidently so, but not in mine. Would you be happy if I were to say to you that I find your opinion to be entirely without merit, or would you go crying to the civility police? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    RfA is a discussion; everything is up for discussion.Smallman12q (talk) 00:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If only that were the case. Keepscases (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support - Sabre wants the tools. I'm okay with that. --KP Botany (talk) 21:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support - Sabre, who has been on wikipedia for over two years, has made over 10,000 edits and although he has created less than a dozen articles, his edits show that he is here to contribute. He has contributed greatly to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games and has set an example of how video game articles should be written. In addition, the points brought up by the opposition are simply ludicrous. My only concern is the large number of deleted edits. I'm going to assume that we learn from our mistakes. ^.^Smallman12q (talk) 00:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I can explain that. That's my sandbox work, I often make complete rewrites in my userspace and then upload them to the namespace via copy and paste. I tend to request deletion of the sandbox pages afterwards, so I imagine that's what contributes to the 1,000 odd deleted contributions. -- Sabre (talk) 01:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well that's good to hear. Someone who works in their sandbox prior to going and testing on Wikipedia. You set an excellent example.Smallman12q (talk) 02:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support Q6 was OK, but I'm pretty confident he won't go and wreck Wikipedia once he gets the tools. Icy // ♫ 22:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support — RyanCross (talk) 07:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support Syjytg (talk) 12:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support - I analyzed his edits, and there is nothing to worry about. AdjustShift (talk) 16:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  77. SupportSpinach Monster (talk) 18:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support good answer to Q.11; there are really some trolls out there; don't feed them. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support. Working to improve articles which might otherwise be deleted, exactly the sort of editor we need. Question answers show you're level headed, and in any event adminship should be given out unless there's a reason not to. Cynical (talk) 21:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support - excellent record, good answers especially to DGG's. Bearian (talk) 22:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support a solid understanding and level of experience in article writing, a cool head and a willingness to reach out to experienced admins makes Sabre an excellent candidate. Someoneanother 15:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  82. look good to me. --Caspian blue 17:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Great editor, and gamers can be any age: I know a seventy-year old who likes the Quake series. Acalamari 18:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose

Weak oppose. I have had a positive interaction with the candidate at User_talk:A_Nobody/Archive_2#Request and I am pleased that the candidate has some barnstars and has never been blocked. I would also support per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kamino (reasonable attempt to get back on track), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knights Templar and popular culture (2nd nomination) (reasonable argument), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Troy Blacklaws (reasonable argument). But I would argue neutral per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arathi (semi-reasonable argument, but use of “cruft” is frowned on), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Mesa Research Facility (redirect somewhat okay), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blood Ravens (again somewhat okay), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Characters in Call of Duty (final stance was “neutral”, so…), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of units in the Age of Mythology series (reasonable argument); Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stilwater (reasonable middle ground), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Forest Rocket Facility (reasonable middle ground). Nevertheless, I compelled to oppose per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brawl Characters' Final Smashes (at worst, should have been a redirect), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devouring One (essentially a WP:JNN), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyokugenryu Karate (no real reason why not to redirect as seems to have happened anyway), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of F.E.A.R. Mods (supporting an article means supporting a rewrite, not to bold face delete), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Gex enemies (calling it non-notable is not accurate; no reason not to redirect/merge), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of units in the Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War series (no reason not merge and redirect), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morretti SR4 (if redirect is okay, then just go with that), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rules of Acquisition (2nd nomination) (a bit confrontational), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weapons and equipment of the Tau Empire (Warhammer 40,000) (don’t see why what’s good for others wikis isn’t good for us, we are also specialized encyclopedias after all and sort of the master wiki), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weapons of SOCOM: U.S. Navy SEALs Combined Assault (if mention is okay in the main article, then merge and redirect at worst), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wraith Squadron (confrontational a bit), Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Fancruft (second nomination) (if redirecting some of the above cited article is somehow not appropriate then deleting a nonsensical non-article redirect is also inappropriate), and Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2008_April_25#Wikipedia:GAMECRUFT_.E2.86.92_Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games.2FArticle_guidelines.23Scope_of_information (no value whatsoever to keeping anything with “cruft” in it around; how that word is defended more than articles is baffling). The opposes are more numerous than the reasons to be neutral or to support and they essentially concern potential bias in closing discussions and as the candidate says he is interested in AfDs, it is especially relevant here. Thus, candidate does not sufficiently meet User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards; however, because there are some saving graces, I will make this stance a “weak oppose.” If there’s a reassurance that AfDs for which the candidate may have bias are avoided or that are on the fence are “no consensus”, then I will reconsider. My concern here stems from closes like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rubber-Band Man (Static Shock) that somehow resulted in delete with no explanation despite considerably more arguments to keep, or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sennon (pretty much everyone was okay with a redirect, but somehow closed as “delete”?!), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schutzwald (how could that not have been “redirect”; no explanation), etc. Now I have no idea if Sabre would do the same thing and the only thing we have to go on is looking at how he argued in AfDs. As such, I see a bit too much of a tendency towards deletion when a redirect would at least be reasonable and in order for me, as an article rescuer, to be okay with him closing AfDs would be if we are reassured that this bias will not influence closes and/or that ones where he might have any bias will be passed over. Hopefully, if this passes, my concerns will not appear and such experiences as the one on my user page cited above will be more the norm. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 01:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion regarding this (now struck) oppose moved to the talk page. –xeno (talk) 19:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Strongest possible oppose If you want to revert vandalism, you don't have to be an admin. But if you're going to give bogus answers like you did to important issues confronting Admins today, then there's no reason for you to be an admin. At least you answered honestly, but we don't need another kid who has a fetish for video games working around here. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You want to be a little more specific? By the way, I own four classic arcade machines, and I'm 46 next month. Deal with it. Duck, I'm swinging my mop.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a policy of not engaging in any further discussions about a nominee unless I find them particularly despicable. I don't have to deal with anything dude. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure the closing crat will take that for what it is worth. And what it is worth and three bucks gets you a cup of coffee at Starbuck's.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Although you're entitled to your opinions to my suitability, I don't appreciate being referred to as "another kid who has a fetish for video games". I realise that the area most of my past work is in involves what some people may see as the bastard-child of the arts and technology, and don't see them as traditional encyclopedia topics, but that has no effect on my judgement. I'm also somewhat past the stage of being a "kid". -- Sabre (talk) 23:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't sweat it, Sabre. OrangeMarlin has a tendency to post rather intemperate opposes. Just his style, I guess. I'm sure all the crats discount such things as a matter of course.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no opinion about the candidate but I am a bit confused about how OrangeM can consider the (same?) answers to be both "honest" and "bogus"… — CharlotteWebb 18:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no opinion about anything whatsoever, but presumably someone could give an "honest" answer in terms of it correctly expresses their viewpoint, but their viewpoint could be "bogus", meaning that it is deeply flawed, based on incorrect assumptions, etc. --B (talk) 23:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Weak Neutral That's the first time I've ever seen that phrase, but it fits: The candidate is certainly a good one, so if I found something seriously wrong, I woudn't oppose, I just wouldn't vote at all (or would have a Strong Neutral). His answer to Q6 (block vs. ban) isn't what I was looking for; the cat usage was less than stellar (although it would have been just as bad if he had used a person beating up another person). flaminglawyer 04:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What is wrong with his answer to Q6? Seems fine to me. — neuro(talk) 07:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well to me (although I didn't consider it enough of an issue to change my support) it reads as if you do bad things, block. If you do worse things, ban. In practice that isn't strictly true, and the key difference between a ban and a block (one is community based and permanent unless consensus changes, one is based on one particular admin) wasn't really brought up. Personally I would have said that blocking is when you kill a cat and a judge sends you away for a few years, banning is when you kill 15 cats, burn down a cat home and say mean things about Garfield and a jury sends you away for life (with the remote possibility of parole). Still probably not very good, but I am working within cat-related limits here. Ironholds (talk) 11:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, that's a pretty good. flaminglawyer 22:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocks = technical measures to prevent editing; bans = community-enforced blocks from editing, but sometimes without the technical block. Although, the answer to question #6 seems reasonable to me. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    He completely ignored the beasts that are topic bans, differences between temporary and permanent blocks, and temporary bans. Overall, he wasn't very descriptive; it was a "The sky is blue" answer, which deserves a "C," as opposed to "The sky is blue because air is slightly reflective; it reflects the water, which is blue because of its molecular properties of wavelength reflection/refraction," which deserves an "A." flaminglawyer 22:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wavelengths aren't refracted, waves are refracted. C-. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we get a cleanup on aisle seven? Someone spilled like twelve cans of pedantry. flaminglawyer 06:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There's plenty more where that came from. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll take a look at the differences and the respective pages a bit more closely. I appreciate the commments here, they've been helpful in highlighting areas of lacking. If given adminship though (I hate that, it sounds political), I would be consulting more experienced admins for quite a while to ensure I'm doing the right thing before doing it when blocks/bans turn up, rather than jumping in the deep end with the business: I don't think there's any risk of dishing out unjustified or inappropriate bans and blocks. Its not an area I would want to get regularly involved in—I'm more interested in the maintenance side of things—but I do recognise the importance of understanding blocks & bans as its liable to feature eventually. I also hate analogies; why didn't I think of burning down a cat home? -- Sabre (talk) 23:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Switched from "weak oppose" above per User_talk:A_Nobody#re:RfA. The candidate's reaction was mature and well-put and given the reasons for supporting mentioned in my oppose above are enough that I can consider a change of stance accordingly. Good luck! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral Q6 is decent, but doesn't signify the candidate's knowledge that a block is a technical tool, while bans are community constructions that are enforced by blocks when necessary. Also, Q11 isn't great -- admins shouldn't decline unblock requests on blocks they made; further, using {{2nd chance}} would give the IP an opportunity to prove him or herself. I didn't want to oppose since the candidate generally seems to have clue, but I can't support in complete good faith at this time. GlassCobra 19:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I can't support anyone who doesn't know the difference between "effect" and "affect". --NE2 13:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Minor slip-up, sorry. -- Sabre (talk) 15:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you kidding me? Unfounded elitism at its finest. — neuro(talk) 17:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per Q11. A bit too much of a hard line taken. Use {{2nd chance}} in a situation like this. –xeno (talk) 14:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Can I recommend that we get that template mentioned somewhere more central? Looking at its links, it doesn't appear to be on any central page (unless its visible on some admin page regular users can't see) so I never knew about it. -- Sabre (talk) 14:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Good idea, we should work it into NAS and the block policy/guideline pages. {{2nd chance}} is something I only learned on "the job" as well - which is why I am neutral rather than opposed. –xeno (talk) 14:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/S@bre&oldid=854467999"