Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SheffieldSteel

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

SheffieldSteel

Final (115/5/6); Closed by Rlevse at 22:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

SheffieldSteel (talk · contribs) - I have been a Wikipedian for a couple of years now, and have accumulated a little over 4,800 edits. In addition to some article work - nothing spectacular - I have contributed to various admin-like areas including WP:ANI, WP:AFD and WP:EAR. To a lesser extent I work to counter vandalism and accordingly I have posted at WP:AIV and WP:RFPP on occasion.

I am now of the opinion that, on balance, having the extra tools is worth the trouble of going through an RfA to get them. I invite the community to consider my contributions and answer the question of whether you trust me not to abuse the tools. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

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

A: I am planning to continue to watch WP:EAR and WP:AFD, as well as the more common noticeboards, and help out however I can. I will continue to counter vandalism wherever I see it, of course. Note that I do not plan on blocking users, and certainly not unblocking them, until I've had more time to become more familiar with the tools. I can see myself getting more involved in dispute resolution with the ability to un/protect pages and avoid having to make {{editprotected}} requests, and contributions to WP:AFD will be considerably easier given the ability to view deleted contribs (and delete articles).

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

A: They are everywhere. I have made many small changes to many many articles, most of which I have reached following requests for help or attention on the various noticeboards. I've given helpful (I hope!) information to newbies and midbies alike, and I've added sources, corrected typos, tried to help resolve disputes - wherever the call has led me. If I had to point at something I'd probably say that (at the time of writing) the first sentence of WP:NPOV was still as I left it.

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: Have I ever! Early on, I was involved in some really nasty disputes in a couple of areas that since ended up at arbitration (Scientology and Paranormal). My experiences there left me unwilling to contribute for a while, although I gradually drifted back. I've been involved in other, smaller-scale disputes since then (see Talk:Hogenakkal Falls and Talk:Atlanta Braves for quite recent examples) but I'd like to think I have coped better. I am coming to the opinion that the "Random Article" button is a great friend in times of Wikistress: the ability to zoom off somewhere unexpected and make random small improvements is very therapeutic.

Optional questions from Winger84

4. Do you believe that it is possible for a user that has been blocked for reasons other than 3RR - making an allowance for the fact that it is possible for two or more editors to experience moments of extreme stubbornness, believing that their edit(s) is/are correct - to ever be completely trusted again? Or, do you believe in the line of thinking, "Once blocked, always watched?" If you believe that it is possible for complete trust to be regained, what is a "reasonable threshold" of time - whether it be specifically time or a number of successful edits - for that trust to be regained? What about a user that has previously been banned but perhaps was able to convince administrators to reinstate their account?

A: Yes, I believe that a user who's been blocked can become a trustworthy and valued contributor. I also believe that, in general, a user who's been blocked is worth watching more carefully. I don't think there are any "hard and fast" rules that can be applied here. It very much depends on the user in question, what they did to get them blocked, and what they've done since.

5. If your RfA is successful, do you intend to add yourself to CAT:AOR?

A: This is a difficult question. I don't want to be seen as supporting what I see as a pretty broken and abusable process; on the other hand, the alternative mechanism has its own problems right now. On balance I think I would answer yes and hope that the conditions I specified wouldn't leave an open door for someone with an axe to grind. Luckily, there are some good examples out there to choose from.

Question from Fleetflame

6. What is your opinion of WP:DGAF?

A: There's a lot to be said for it - not caring too much, that is. The people who care the most tend to be the least easy to talk to and to reason with, in Wikipedia and elsewhere.

Optional questions from NuclearWarfare

7. This is usually Xeno's question, but I like it too: 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 at User:NuclearWarfare/Xenocidic/RFAQ and describe how you would respond to the IP's request to be unblocked.

A. My first instinct would be to challenge them on their contributions record, pointing out the "Hubuttman teseckseth" edit (not the incivil unblock request that was redacted), asking why if they were "done vandalising", they still made such a non-productive edit, and then weigh their reply. I have to say, I'd be very unlikely to unblock this user, since their only productive edit was apparently in response to a final warning. The question strongly implies that this is the editor's entire contribution record, so I have assumed that there were no other constructive contribs (which I would otherwise take into account). I'd probably respond, ultimately, by declining the unblock request, reminding them that they are free to contribute constructively after the block expires, and I'd probably not point out that administrators do not need "permission" to block or ban disruptive editors.

edited to add It's been brought to my attention that admins should not normally decline unblock requests for blocks that they themselves have made. In the light of this information, I would like to revise one aspect of my answer. I would not decline the unblock request. Instead, I would wait to see if an uninvolved admin, after seeing the unblock request and reviewing the block, asked me for my opinion, in which case I would provide it.

Optional questions from Nsk92

8. Could you comment in a little more detail on your article/mainspace work? Your user-page lists only one article that you created. Are there others? Or other articles that you made substantial contributions to? Or gnome work/random article button work?

A: I'm a bit tall for a gnome, but if the hat fits :-)

I've not been a prolific writer, although I am generally good at grammar and spelling. I would like to create more articles but I have a horrible feeling that the best articles are already taken, leaving the willing contributor skirting the edges of notability, looking for an opportunity. I was kind of surprised to learn that there wasn't an article on SFTT, which is why I created it - and good sources were a lot harder to find than I was expecting! So... I try to improve incrementally, rather than starting from scratch, and I add material from sources that other people are unlikely to have access to. That is why I've contributed to Religious Society of Friends and C++ recently (although no source is going to justify an edit like this - sometimes you need to know the subject). I'm afraid that a good few of my edits have been minor fixes, attempts to hold things together during edit wars, making sure grammar, spelling and references don't suffer too badly. Hope this helps, and I'm sorry if there's nothing very impressive out there.

Optional question from  Asenine 

9. In his daily editing, a newbie user edits a prominent page. His edit contains reliable sources. Unbeknownst to them, the edit they just made was against an overwhelming consensus on the talk page. Disgruntled editors then take action and replace the edited text with their own version which was decided with consensus. Their version, however, does not include any sources at all, and is unverifiable. What should be done to resolve the issue effectively, and which editor is doing the right thing according to policy?

A: The newbie is doing the right thing, since a local consensus can't trump core policies like WP:V or WP:NPOV. The key is discussion. If I can make sure everyone is willing to assume good faith and discuss the matter civilly, I don't have to solve the problem. They should be able to do that between themselves. So, I would make a post on the article Talk page explaining that the newbie is trying to improve the article by providing sourced material, and asking the established editors to find common ground, to discuss and consider allowing the change to stand. After all, everyone wants to improve that article, right? I might cite WP:BURDEN to reinforce the point that their preferred version cannot remain without sources of its own. I would also send a message to the newbie's User Talk page, make sure they had been welcomed and knew how to contact me, and give them some encouragement (since mass rejection can be rather chilling). Then I would "play it by ear".

Optional question from 129.1.31.164

10. Since anonymous editors don't get to !vote, I hope you'll let me ask a relevant question. Since you've spent time at WP:AIV, what criteria will you use as an administrator when you're considering a block request where the offending editor has only received a single 4im warning? As a corollary, at what point do you think 4im warnings run foul of WP:BITE?

A: I'd block the editor if I was sure that the 4im was appropriate and if they were continuing to disrupt Wikipedia - a block is justified if disruption is ongoing. However, if there was any good faith interpretation for their contribs (and some people are better at seeing these than others) a 4im should not have been used. In that case, I would either check on WP:ANI or contact another admin directly for advice. I certainly wouldn't issue any other warning template, but depending on the circumstances I might write a User Talk message explaining the problem with the user's actions. This has the benefit that good faith users can be steered in the right direction, and bad faith users will not be able to plead ignorance. I think that covers the BITE question too.

Questions from Presumptive

11. Would you be willing to accept a term of 12-18 months? Some say that this will keep admins editing and not to become wikipedia military police. Others say that a fixed term would increase responsible administration. Or do you want to be appointed Administrator For Life? Presumptive (talk) 03:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

My goodness, but you are aptly named. MastCell ^Talk 03:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I certainly can't argue with that. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I urge the candidate not to answer this question. The question is formed in such a way that poisons the well, and it includes a massive assumption of bad faith. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 03:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Ice Cold Beer, please do not be nasty to me as you have been. Presumptive (talk) 04:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Take it outside, boys. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

A: Apologies for the delay. I've been sleeping (I had a wisdom tooth removed earlier today). I have some sympathy for what I assume is Presumptive's base position, i.e. that admins need to be more accountable and/or there needs to be a way of removing the bit which is neither on a voluntary/adhoc basis (AOR), nor involving high drama (ArbCom). Having said that, I don't think fixed term limits for administrators are the solution.

To answer the question: I'd accept a term limit if that became policy.

Follow-up question: Thank you for your answer. Given your analysis of the problem, what is the solution if term limits are not the solution? Presumptive (talk) 01:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

12. If a user complained to you that they were being followed around by another user and you confirmed that this is true, would you do anything? Or would you simply advise the user to make a complaint to ArbCom? Presumptive (talk) 04:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

A: First of all, I'd refresh my memory of relevant policy and guidelines (WP:HARASS comes to mind). Then I'd figure out what to do - with advice from more experienced admins as necessary - and I'd do it. Assuming no prior mention of this was in either editor's Talk page history, I'd issue a warning. Sorry if this seems rather simplistic, but in this hypothetical world I'm a great admin and it's like all the editors are moving in slow motion. Possibly, however, it is the painkillers.

Question from Lankiveil

13. A newbie user comes to you complaining that they have been the victim of a personal attack by an experienced user. Upon reviewing the situation, the experienced user has described an edit of the newbie as "idiotic and puerile", but has not commented on the newbie themself. What do you do? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC).

A: I'd contact the established user and ask nicely if they'd consider withdrawing their remarks in the interests of harmonious editing. I'd explain that it's very easy to interpret "what you did was stupid" as meaning "you are stupid" and suggest an apology of the form "I'm sorry if you felt that [diff] was a personal attack, as that was not my intent."

Question from Allthedamnnamesaretaken

14. I am unsatisfied with your answer to Presumptive's question about term limits (Question 11, see my reason in the Discussion section). Do you think there needs to be an established policy/procedure to de-sysop administrators other than going through ArbCom or voluntary recall? If so, what are your thoughts on how the procedure could be designed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allthedamnnamesaretaken (talk • contribs) 19:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

A: I'm sorry to hear that you're dissatisfied with my answer. I'll happily discuss this when I have a bit less on my to-do list, if that's okay with you. Nice userbox collection btw.

Question from MastCell

15. Do you view the human situation as essentially comic or tragic? If, not why? MastCell ^Talk 21:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

A: Absolutely. I'm glad you didn't ask me to try to choose.

General comments

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

• Links for SheffieldSteel: SheffieldSteel (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

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

Discussion

• I'd like to see a more thorough answer to Q11 (term limits). The answer of "I'd accept a term limit if that became policy" is fluff. All editors (and especially administrators, since they should act as role models) are expected to follow policy. Allthedamnnamesaretaken (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

  I suppose it's fairly obvious that I am in favor of administrators having "terms", towards the end the admin would be required to go through a simple vote of confidence. If he passes, he'd go on for another term (with no limits on the # of terms). If failed, he'd be required to go through RfA again to be a sysop again. In any event, I posted Q14 to see if and how the nom would like to have a policy to de-sysop admins without going through ArbCom/recall.Allthedamnnamesaretaken (talk) 19:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

  I'm sorry if my answer looked like a vacuous statement about policy; that was not my intent. I meant to communicate the exact circumstances in which I would accept a term limit. I hope this clears up the matter. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• The practice of asking candidates whether they are open to recall or not, especially if it carries any connotation of support dependent on the answer, ought to be discouraged, and candidates should feel free to refuse to answer if they so wish. We need fewer situations where passing is dependent on placing ones self in some category or another. Either the candidate is fit for adminship, or the candidate is unfit for adminship. Advance conditionals are a bad idea, as they are practically impossible to enforce. Clearly, my previous practice of asking this was wrong. ++Lar: t/c 15:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. Support - I view opposing RfAs on the view self-noms are prima facie evidence of power hunger res ispa loquitur evidence of not knowing Latin. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

   Extended discussion regarding this support moved to WT:Requests for adminship/SheffieldSteel –xeno (talk) 17:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

2. Yup, a good guy. He works in numerous areas and his edits show he has a lot of clue. Certainly has the experience required to make a good admin. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
3. Support. I've seen you around Wikipedia, and after poking around your userspace I've decided to support. Your work here is good, and I can see that you actually need the tools for something more than a trophy. Good luck, Malinaccier (talk) 23:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
4. Support. bibliomaniac15 23:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
5. Support, definitely worthy of the tools. Wizardman 23:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
6. Support, happy to. :) Aunt Entropy (talk) 23:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
7. Support I trust this user wholeheartedly. He's been involved in some nasty disputes on controversial subjects and has always shown maturity, knowledge, and a cool head with arguments that invoke policy and hit it right on the button. He's respectful and to-the-point, which is good combination for an admin. I normally wait until some of the common questions are asked, but I have enough experience dealing with this user and confidence in his knowledge and attitude that I am comfortable supporting now. I'm sure he'd take it slow and do some studying at WP:NAS to compensate for any experience he lacks in certain areas. Good candidate. Okiefromokla ^questions? 23:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

   Note to candidate Per Q7 — I hope you don't make a habit of declining the unblock requests of users you blocked. You should always let another admin look over them except in cases of abusing the unblock template. Also, when in doubt of a user's intentions, use the 2nd chance template; It can never hurt. Just keep that in mind. Okiefromokla ^questions? 17:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

8. Support Ice Cold Beer (talk) 23:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
9. Support good user. —αἰτίας •discussion• 23:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
10. Support per Ryan Postlethwaite (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 00:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
11. Support By all means, rational and common sensical. RxS (talk) 00:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
12. Support- good article work demonstrates the candidate knows what an encyclopedia is about, sound reasoning at XfD and elsewhere demonstrates a level head and firm knowledge of policy. Reyk _YO! 00:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
13. Support. I've seen him around a lot. He's experienced, knows policy, and civil. He has my trust with the tools. Useight (talk) 00:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
14. Support Because user is a wikignome and because user needs the tools.--LAAFan 00:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
15. Support. I view SheffieldSteel's work as prima facie evidence of needing admin tools. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 00:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
16. Support - Strikes such a solid balance mingled with thoughtful comments and a civil nature. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
17. Support—Looks good. Maxim (☎) 01:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
18. Support RMHED (talk) 01:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
19. Support: Seems honest and trustworthy enough. Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
20. Oh, hell yes!!!!. I actually tried vehemently to get SheffieldSteel to accept my nomination for adminship months ago! I would be his nominator, and should be his nominator, except I don't do that anymore, for personal reasons. I'm so very glad to see SheffieldSteel boldly taking a step towards improving Wikipedia with the extra tools! The tools are meaningless, really, and they should be the default setting and removed for abuse. That's merely my opinion. SS has proven that he knows how to write articles, but also that he knows how to diffuse contentious situations, and he knows what Wikipedia is and what it isnt'. I'm proud to be a supporter of his request, regardless of the outcome. Supprort, without hesitation! Keeper ǀ 76 01:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
21. Support Great user, see him around a lot. No reason not to support. LittleMountain5 ^{Sign here} _review! 02:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
22. Support. Levelheaded and reasonable editor. Plus he likes fishapods. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
23. Support I've been giving this candidate the once over because of his involvement with controversial subjects such as ID, 911, abortion, and creationism. While I don't always agree with him, I can't help be impressed by his demeanor and desire to get to an accurate NPOV articles. To quote pigman, Why would anyone be interested in your opinion? Because you seem generally balanced and considered of word. Thanks for clarifying your position on the matter; your statement was a careful presentation of the good/bad faith perspectives. My bad for attempting to interpret your earlier words into a specific position. ---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 02:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
24. Support I have seen this editor around and have been impressed with their demeanor and attention to quality content. Jehochman ^Talk 02:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
25. Strong support Editor with a fair mind and a commitment to policy. His participation at AfD is well-reasoned (as always, I would prefer radical inclusionism, but "well-reasoned" will do in a pinch!), his closures are always consistent with consensus, and his work at EA is marked by a strong knowledge of policy and an ability to work with difficult editors. I would cite, for just one example, this EA diff, where, wading into an intractable and frankly idiotic dispute involving an editor with an idée fixe about the Atlanta Braves (and are there any idées more fixes than those regarding sports?), he takes the time to clearly and politely explain the available options. It's a good example of trying to talk a troublesome editor down from the ledge with the force and wisdom of policy behind you. As regards SS's past with difficult areas of the project, it's clear that he's been there and back and learned from it. Good administrator material. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 03:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
26. Support should be ok. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
27. Support Quality candidate, acceptable answers to my questions, no reason to believe the candidate would misuse the tools. --Winger84 (talk) 03:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
28. Support. Several times in the past few months I've thought that SheffieldSteel was good admin material. I'm glad to see the nom and happy to support it. — Athaenara ✉ 04:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
29. Strong support: An excellent candidate, and I would happily have nominated him myself if his power hunger had not gotten the better of him. :) SheffieldSteel possesses a surfeit of cluefulness and maturity - the most important qualities for adminship - and he'll do good work with the tools. Absolutely support. MastCell ^Talk 04:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
30. Support. Looking through the editors interactions with other wikipedia users, I am comfortable that SheffieldSteel will demonstrate the maturity and patience needed to use the mop-and-flamethrower™ properly and not abuse them, and overall, I believe this editor's judgment worthy of being extended the community's trust. -- Avi (talk) 04:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
31. Support in spite of obvious prima facie power hunger. --John (talk) 04:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
32. Based on answers to questions, particularly #3, and on difs provided by Le Grand Roi. Dlohcierekim 04:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
33. Support I have seen him around and have no reasons to believe that the tools will be misused.<3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 05:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
34. Support - I do not see any possibility of abuse. Tiptoety ^talk 05:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
35. Support I view self-noms as...NO! BAD PARAGON! Anyway, good gnome-work and I see no problem with giving you the bit. You could use a little article work, but I have absolutely no room to talk there. Paragon¹²³²¹ 05:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
36. Support This editor has a great track record (as pointed out above) and there is not a single reason to believe (as far as I saw it) that he would abuse his newfound mob and hit people over the head with it. Being a WikiGnome should be the first criteria for adminship imho (not just because I am one too) because those editors find "joy" in doing all the little sweeping up, the housework and the cleaning and that's what the admin tools are - cleanup tools to keep Wikipedia clean. And if the user is furthermore civil and cool-headed and (like the candidate) trying to do his best to adhere to all policies, then that's a definite reason to make him an admin. So#Why ^{review me!} 07:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
37. Support. Perfect admin material. Will be just great. nancy ^talk 07:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
38. Support Someething rings a bell about positive previous interaction, but I couldn't find it in archives. Anyway, a net positive with the extra tools. Best Wishes. Pedro :  Chat  07:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
39. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 07:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
40. Support - Shown a need for the tools, no history of misuse, and all round polite person. --MattWT_{added on} 08:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
41. Support - Appears to be a long-time, positive contributor. Chicken Wing (talk) 08:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
42. Support - No problems here.  Asenine  09:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
43. naerii 11:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
44. To quote the candidate: "I invite the community to consider my contributions and answer the question of whether you trust me not to abuse the tools" - My answer is Yes, I trust you not to abuse the tools. John Sloan (talk) 11:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
45. Support Excellant admin material. While I would like to see a bit more article work, the ability to help newbies is a very useful qualification, I think. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 11:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
46. Support In my (admittedly few) times coming across this editor, I have been impressed. Contrributions show a pretty high degree of WP:CLUE is present. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me | Review me} 11:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
47. Guarded support. Have some concerns about the comparitive lack of contributions to the main space though. CrispMuncher (talk) 11:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
48. Support Sure. MBisanz ^talk 12:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
49. Support. Seems like a sensible, thoughtful candidate who puts policy before personal interest. Nandesuka (talk) 13:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
50. Support I've seen Sheffield around, and I've seen nothing but good and constructive contributions. A pleasure to support. PeterSymonds (talk) 13:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
51. Support. Adminship should either be automatically granted on request without going through RfA, or automatically granted after 6 months of editing, but until either of those happens I will automatically vote Support on all self-noms. KleenupKrew (talk) 14:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
52. Support Looks trustworthy to me. --Dweller (talk) 15:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
53. Support, no problems. --Kbdank71 15:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
54. Support - looks good; meets my standards; very interesting user page; this essay. Bearian (talk) 15:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
55. Support Tan ǀ 39 16:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
56. Support. the wub "?!" 17:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
57. Support. - Dureo (talk) 17:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
58. Support. Overall, Sheffield Steel will be a good admin. Although I'm disappointed by the fence-sitting with question 5. Axl (talk) 17:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
59. Support for several mature and rational discussions in support of NPOV and the encyclopedia in general. Clearly makes frequent trips to the clue depot. - Eldereft (cont.) 18:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
60. Support - surprised he isn't already an admin. Support per excellent answer to Q3, very reasonable Q5, equally reasonable Q7, and the AfD diffs provided by Le Grand Roi (#1 in neutral, below) Badger Drink (talk) 18:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
61. Support - We need more admins from Sheffield. (also having seen him around here and there have not seen any reason to oppose)--Jac16888 (talk) 19:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
62. Enthusiastically support In short, SS gets it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC) Addendum Answer to Q.9 makes it game, set and match. Outstanding. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
63. Support because the north of England rocks, and there aren't enough admins from up here. Plus all this stuff. I shall be expecting some thankspam. - Toon⁰⁵ 20:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
64. Support - I thought I added my support this morning but I can't see it. Someone please smack me with a WP:TROUT if I'm just going crosseyed and am voting twice. Shereth 20:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

    Unless you used a different username, you should be alright :-) Keeper ǀ 76 20:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

65. Support; A good candidate with sufficient clue to be a good admin. I'm encouraged by his answer to question 5; Quite honestly, that's the kind of response that could result in opposes, but he posted it anyway. I'll take an honest admin over a popular one anyday. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
66. Support, only ever had good great interactions with Steel, would be a great addition to the admin ranks. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
67. Strong support-Great editor. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
68. Support Great editor, not afraid to wade into policy stuff. Will be one of the good ones.King Pickle (talk) 23:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
69. Support No reservations about this candidate.--MONGO 00:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
70. Support - I like his style, attitude, and to-the-pointness. Fine editor.  SISTER   00:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
71. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
72. Support. Has the right amount of clue. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 01:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
73. Support. Risker (talk) 01:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
74. Oh hells yeah. Already thought he was one for some time now. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 07:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
75. This user is experienced and will not misuse the bit. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
76. Good chap. What MastCell said. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 12:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
77. Support - good contributions, I can trust in SheffieldSteel as an admin. doña macy 12:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
78. Support Posting vandals at AIV doesn't uniquely qualify someone to handle the buttons. Everything seems in order here. Also, lay off Sceptre unless you're willing to explain why it is bad for him to be disruptive but OK for Kurt to be disruptive. Protonk (talk) 14:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
79. Support, btw. user:Everyme 15:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
80. Support - Very good quality candidate. Has been here more than long enough to fully understand what he's doing round here. Lradrama 15:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
81. Support - I have full confidence that SheffieldSteel will be a good admin. --Aude (talk) 16:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
82. Support - Seems like a great editor, no problems. --Meldshal42? 16:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
83. Support No problems here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
84. Super Strong Support - I think it took some guts to nominate himself the guts an administrator needs to work with other user, we wouldn't want some timid person to be and admin who just doddles around Wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by My Account (talk • contribs) 18:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
85. Support If I had been between on the fence, the answers do it for me. --Cameron* 20:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
86. Support "Wikipedia is not a crazy den of pigs", indeed. Sheffo will help clean out the sty. --Rodhullandemu 22:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
87. Support - I would like to see a little more article work, but basically SheffieldSteel is a helpful, competent and civil editor and I can see no reasons in contributions, talkpage, answers above or opposes below to think that he/she can not be trusted with admin tools. --BelovedFreak 22:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
88. Support. Fully qualified candidate, no concerns. The opposers' rationales are unpersuasive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
89. Support: This guy's a top-notch professional—clean and clear. -- Veggy (talk) 02:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
90. Support Seen him around quite often, great editor. Midorihana みどりはな 06:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
91. Support per Q13. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC).
92. Support No reason to oppose. Good luck. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 12:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
93. Support - I agree with Ferrylodge's oppose, but do not see that as a big enough deal to not support --T-rex 14:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
94. Support So I wouldn't agree with taking that sourced RR quote out of Abortion debate but that's a content dispute in a widely argued topic often misunderstood by either side. This may be the first self-nom I've ever supported. The pith is, I trust SheffieldSteel and would say he's shown his overall grasp of Wikipedia's policies is strong. Please go slowly at first, read up and don't be shy about asking questions, since it's true you haven't been doing lots of adminly tasks. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
95. I accept. Tharnton345 (talk) 19:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
96. Support – in my experience SheffieldSteel has shown wisdom and so should make a good admin. Gwen's opinion and advice is sound. . . dave souza, talk 19:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
97. Supporting again, even though it's a foregone conclusion. I have seen SS around, and have liked what I've seen. Meets all of my criteria for supporting with ease, so here I am. ^S._D.Jameson 19:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
98. Support - No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 20:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
99. Support The first self-nom I've ever supported as well, but well worth the precedent. See Gwen's advice above - it's right on the money. Toddst1 (talk) 21:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
100. Support - per {{User:SheffieldSteel/Pigs}}, follow-up to Q7 and a lulzworthy handling of Q15. Come on MastCell, this is an RFA, not a philosophy term paper. –xeno (talk) 22:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

     Hmm... I'll put you down for "essentially comic". :) Just having some fun. MastCell ^Talk 17:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

101. Support per SS’s contributions to admin-related areas of the project and the calm reasoning displayed; also per the answers to the above questions. —Travis^talk 23:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
102. Support - looks fine to me. Deb (talk) 11:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
103. Support - this looks like a no-brainer to me. Don't let Gwen fool you, though; she supported me first :-)  Frank  |  talk  17:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
104. Support based on my own interactions and answer to question 9 Beeblbrox (talk) 18:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
105. Support or oppose per question 15. ++Lar: t/c 19:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
106. Support. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
107. Support America69 (talk) 01:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
108. Support Supremely trustworthy, will most definitely wield the mop well. Steven Walling (talk) 04:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
109. Support Looks good. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 06:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
110. Support in my experience SheffieldSteel is well endowed with clue. Shell ^babelfish 20:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
111. Support. See no reason to think he will abuse the tools. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
112. Had I known he wanted to go for RfA, I would have nominated SheffieldSteel myself. Great user. Acalamari 16:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
113. Support - after further review (including previous interactions I've had with you), I think this is appropriate. But, I trust you will keep what I said (below) in mind for the future. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
114. Support - SheffieldSteel seems utterly level headed and sane. Who could ask for more? maxsch (talk) 17:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
115. Support. Absolutely no concerns, even though I waited for a while for any to be brought up due to my lack of interaction with the candidate. Looks like a level-headed, thoughtful and well-intentioned user who could use the tools well. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 19:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

   Oppose Not outstanding article work, not outstanding article works. Two edits to ANI in last 500 edits, 1 to AIV, both areas he says he wants to work in or has done work. Answer to Q7 gives a little to be desired, and fence-sitting response to Q5. I'd be open to supporting after a little more edits to AIV/ANI, etc. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 19:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Switch to Neutral

2. Oppose I have crossed out my "neutral" comment below, and regretfully am moving to oppose. Until I noticed this RfA, I had not encountered or observed SheffieldSteel's editing in a very long time. And I still have not tried to comprehensively study this nominee's editing. However, in view of the comment that I crossed out below, I have now taken a very brief look at a few of SheffieldSteel's recent edits. In particular, I'm concerned about recent edits at Abortion debate (I have never been involved with that article as far as I recall, but have been involved with related articles, as indicated unfortunately in my block log). Anyway, on 7 August 2008, SheffieldSteel made this edit followed by this talk page comment. If people are interested, they can take a look. The idea that an article on that subject should exclude relevant comments by a leading political figure is troublesome enough, but referring to that figure as "Ronald Reagan, of all people" confirms my concern that this nominee has a tendency to needlessly make certain contentious articles more contentious.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

   I see nothing wrong with either diff. In fact, I would have done the same thing. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 05:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

   Same. What is the problem?  Asenine  07:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

   Agreed. His reasoning is quite correct on this one. His comment about Ronald Reagan is just to indicate that Mr. Reagan, as is well known, has a strong POV and while that's nothing bad, cannot be the sole source for a section making such claims. SoWhy ^{review me!} 07:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

   Piling on. I don't get what FL is trying to say about the edits. They look fair, civil, and well-reasoned. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

   To suggest that what Ronald Reagan has said in the abortion debate should be excluded from that article because he's not scholarly enough struck me as snooty, to say the least. The comment "Ronald Reagan of all people" was especially uncalled for. Obviously, the editor who wanted to quote Reagan had some problems with formatting and other fixable problems. But you don't bite the newbies. A simple Google search would have shown that the Reagan quote in question is a well-known part of the abortion debate.[1][2] As another editor put it today,[3] "I don't see a problem with using Reagan as a source: the abortion debate is largely a political and social one, rather than an academic one, so using arguments put forward by politicians seems reasonable." The issue here is not about a simple disagreement, but rather with the contentious language ("Ronald Reagan of all people") used, and it conforms with my previous experience (see struck through comment below). I really have a lot of other stuff on my plate right now, I've had my say, and therefore I don't plan on getting into a debate here about it. Others can make of it what they will. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

   Sounds reasonable on your part. Maybe you should bring your opinions on this matter to the discussion page of the article. Still, SheffieldSteel's comments were civil and reasoned, I just don't think you agree with his logic. I think many of us who clicked on your link expected something else (along the lines of my more classic edit summaries). OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

   You do have some classics.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 16:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

   Yah, I think the answer was pretty good. More a reason to support than oppose. Dlohcierekim 06:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

   Though I'm still opposing, I'd have to say that I would have done the same thing and I think that the edits actually demonstrate a knowledge of WP:NPOV. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 17:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

3. Meh. Not much article work. Dismissiveness on something he really should know better. I was also confused by his comment here. Not sure if I'm happy to have him around AfD yet. —Giggy 00:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

   FWIW, I find your comment in that AfD far more worrying. Consider that this is the article revision for which you actually argued that it contains "multiple independent reliable sources" — which is clearly not the case. To summarise: SheffieldSteel was spot-on, you were dead wrong. user:Everyme 11:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

4. Oppose as above. PlusDrawn (talk) 09:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
5. Oppose I feel very uncomfortable with a non-admin closing AfD discussions as delete. If he can't follow the basic non-admin closure guidelines, he probably won't make a good admin. Sorry! « Diligent Terrier [talk] 17:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

   The ones that I've seen where he closed them as "delete" were for articles that were already deleted via some other means, usually speedy. In essence, he's just doing housekeeping, closing out debates with a foregone conclusion. Are there any that you've found (they could exist, I simply haven't found any) where SS closes something as "delete" prior to them actually being deleted, and not vice versa? Keeper ǀ 76 17:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC). My apologizes, DT, I think I'm thinking of a different editor, not this candidate, therefore I spoke too soon. Upon further reasearch, I can't really find any evidence of any delete closes, outside of this one, which more closely matches the concern that you're describing. It was a "no-brainer" delete, hardly controversial, but I see your point about the sensitivity that is NAC. Keeper ǀ 76 18:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

   (e/c) I have actually performed two non-admin closes as Delete which should in retrospect have been left to an administrator. Both times, I was helping with a backlog at AfD and saw a clear consensus to delete. The first time, an admin speedied the article before I could write out a {{db-g6}} template. The second time, an admin responded to my CSD template by posting to my Talk page telling me not to do non-admin closes as Delete. My response was perhaps rather oddly worded (see giggy's oppose above) largely because I was surprised at being wrong in an area I thought I was familiar with. Looking back, my mistake was thinking that, having determined consensus at AfD, the actual deletion of the article would be a non-controversial housekeeping task (i.e. a G6 candidate). This was an attempt to find a new way for non-admins to help at AfD, and I regret that it was misguided. Fortunately, I was fairly cautious and any disruption I caused was minimal. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral. Oppose per [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], and[9], but support per [10], [11], and [12]. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

   Those delete !votes you cite as oppose reasons seem all very fine and in line with policy and guidelines. What exactly is wrong with them? user:Everyme 23:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

   I was wondering the same thing.  SISTER   00:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

   Le Grand Roi is essentially a radical inclusionist and tends to base his RfA opinions on that. It's okay. Everyone brings their own considerations. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 01:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

2. Don't see enough article building, won't oppose however. — Realist² 01:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
3. Neutral This vote is based on my sole encounter with the candidate, who made a bizarre attempt to convince me that I was not being insulted when someone called my opinions "ignorant" in an AfD debate. Yeah, right -- I still cannot fathom the logic behind that effort. Having not experienced the positive encounters that the Support crowd enjoyed, and seeing no clear reason to Oppose, I guess I have to sit down here and bum cigarettes off Realist2 and Le Grand Roi. :) Ecoleetage (talk) 02:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

   I quit 12 months ago. — Realist² 02:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

   Good for you. I should follow your lead. :) Ecoleetage (talk) 02:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

   Better approaches exist to Q7. I'm also under the impression, from the Q&A that his approach is too aggressive to an extent - I'd support if that's been addressed and there's an improvement. - Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

4. Neutral leaning support Steel seems like he wouldn't be a bad admin. I'm a little concerned about the answer to Q7, but doesn't give me enough reason to say oppose by far. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 14:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

   Neutral I felt that the nominee unwisely imported extraneous contentious factors (race, gender, marital status) into a discussion that already involved a contentious subject (fetal development). But it was well over a year ago, it only happened once, and it was done in the course of making otherwise legitimate arguments.[13]Ferrylodge (talk) 02:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

   (switched to support) As he created {{User:SheffieldSteel/Pigs}}, I'd like to support, but neutral per answer to Q7. Admins should typically not decline unblock requests for blocks they placed, and I'd like to see a willingness to give people a {{2nd chance}} (in template form or otherwise) when there might be some small chance that a vandalizing user will turn themself around. Vandals are a dime a dozen and re-blocks are cheap...constructive contributors are golden. Reading the answer again, he does seem like he will at least engage the IP/user in further discussion, which is a positive sign. –xeno (talk) 13:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

5. Neutral from Oppose- I still carry my concerns from my previous oppose, but the candidate's general all-around personality and answers to questions force me to Neutral. Best of luck, Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 13:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
6. Neutral, leaning towards Support — I really would like to support, I already thought you were an administrator. However, the relative lack of article contributions concerns me. I'm further worried by the somewhat fear you seem to have expressed of creating new articles in Q8. Other than that, I have no concerns with this candidate and wish you the best of luck. —Cyclonenim^T@lk? 17:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

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