Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SkierRMH

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

SkierRMH

Final (35/2/1); Originally scheduled to end 06:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC). Nomination successful. --Deskana (talk) 10:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

SkierRMH (talk · contribs) - I present for your viewing pleasure SkierRMH, whom it is my great pleasure and privilege to nominate for adminship. As RfA is not a vote, I would implore you to thoroughly review the candidate’s contributions rather than supporting because of this nomination. However, SkierRMH has made (if I recall correctly, as I don’t make a habit of checking this value daily…) over 40,000 edits, so that could take a while! No, he is not an admin, and has never been an admin. He’s just a hard working wikignome who’s passionate about the project, and likes improving it the best way he can. SkierRMH has made stacks of XfD nominations, and I’ve especially noticed good work around TfD. There are often templates that somehow get created, without serving any conceivable or useful purpose, but that aren’t noticed by article readers because they do…well…nothing. In his gnoming, SkierRMH has encountered stacks and stacks of these (as well as many other deletion worthy items), and has displayed excellent knowledge of our deletion processes and policies in nominating them. You may question why SkierRMH never ran for RfA sooner - Well, I offered to nominate him at the end of August (the day before that happened, actually…), but he politely declined my offer, explaining that some of his views in various areas were not in line with policies, and so he wanted a bit more time, to make a few more edits, and whatnot (full discussion can be found somewhere around the bottom of my August 2007 archive). A few days ago, SkierRMH approached me again, explaining that he felt ready this time, and was willing to give RfA a shot. My nomination offer still stood, as he had continued to do nothing but good, and thus I am here to present SkierRMH to you, the community. Dihydrogen Monoxide 07:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I humbly accept Dihydrogen Monoxide's nomination. SkierRMH 18:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

"Optional statement"

I've been a Wikignome for quite a while (Dihydrogen Monoxide's count was a bit low, I think it's about 85,000 or so by now) - if you're trying to use the wannabe_kate or other edit counters, beware - they probably aren't accurate! I've kept an unofficial count here, and Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits is a good reference as well.

And before the question is asked: Yes, I'm willing to add my name to the admins available for recall. I believe that accountability is extremely important when dealing with a project this size.

And before the other question is asked by a bureaucrat (or others), I do not ever intend to ask for admin status for my bot.

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: There are several areas in which I'm active where the "mop" would be extremely helpful, including images (CAT:IFD, CAT:DFUI, Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images, WP:CSD, & WP:CP); correct titles for articles (Wikipedia:Requested moves); templates (WP:TFD & Wikipedia:Deprecated and orphaned templates; categories (CAT:CSD & WP:UCFD); redirects WP:RFD; miscellany WP:MFD - to name a few (I've added my share of items to those lists ;0) I also pop in at WP:AFD (especially in articles relating to bio's, films & albums/music), WP:PER & WP:RFP.

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

A: I have created about 160 articles, including completing the discography for a couple of my favourite groups The Manhattan Transfer and Riders in the Sky. In addition to checking fair use for images, I've uploaded my fair share as well.

I'm active in the Film & Album projects, and Jogers and I (and others, of course) have a little "task" with albums, here and films within those projects.

I'm also running SkiersBot which checks article stub categories and includes them in the appropriate project on the talk page.

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: Conflicts? No, not really... Good discussions with disagreements, of course! I try to assume good faith, until proven otherwise. My user page & talk page have oft been vandalized, no big deal! I've been accused of being a racist [1], which I thought was hilarious!

For stress relief, when need of a good laugh, I go to Wikipedia:Unusual articles and Wikipedia:Silly Things!

Optional question by DarkFalls

4. Given the chance, would you alter this statement in any way, or does this comment represent your current views of the matter? (Not looking for an explanation of what's happening but whether you felt you behaved appropriately)

That's what I was referring to above - (accusation of racism) - I had tagged two articles simply as "unreferenced" (and they're still marked as such) and was accused of "discrediting" the people by doing this (which was false). I think that I supported my tagging of the article, and gave some rationale regarding citing sources & verifiability. The problem therein in both of those articles is that there's nothing supporting the verifiability of the statements. I maybe came across as a bit 'strong', but getting blindsided by that accusation was a bit odd (and in hindsight, now, funny) considering I really don't have any opinion on the matter he was referring to. I also did look at the previous entries on the user page (apparent prior block, others with issues of "civil", others notices of similar non-sourcing, etc.), and thought that an explanation of the reasons that people were placing "references" on his entries, rather than placing a generic template/warning was a bit more appropriate.

The issue ended with an apology from Ryanasaurus0077 and all is cool! I hope that answers the question, with a rationale as to the reason the message was placed there. If not, just ask for a clarification & I'll try to do so. SkierRMH 08:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Pedro

5. Recently you nominated Zafar Ansari for speedy deletion, which I declined. You took it to WP:AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zafar Ansari as per my edit summary. I note that one other editor could not understand why it was not speedy deleted either. The text at the time you tagged it was as follows;

Zafar is a young cricketer in England, with various accolades. Formerly, he attended St. John's Beaumont school before moving onto Hampton School, which he currently attends. He is in the Surrey County Cricket Club's Academy. He has represented England Under 15 XI.

Do you feel I was in error not to have deleted? Under what criteria should it have been deleted via speedy? Pedro :  Chat  09:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

A. No, I don't feel that you were in error to not have deleted! I believe that's the good part of the process - that more than one pair of eyes get to look at something before an action is made. I'm presuming (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that you took the "Various accolades" as the A7 claim to notability, with "represented England..." as support. I took those claims to be more of the "He was president of the middle school student council" type of claim to "notability" (could be regional/national differences?). So, with the difference of opinion in that regard (2 different viewpoints regarding the notability claim), the sensible thing would to be to garner a bit more information/consensus regarding the article - and that's why I happily took it to AfD.SkierRMH 15:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

6. An administrator has blocked an editor and you disagree with the block. What is the policy about unblocking and do you intend to adhere to it?--MONGO 18:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

A: First, double checking that there's nothing blatantly in error (such as typos in names, etc), then referring to put it there and take it away (and trying to keep away from spinning wheels) my first step would be to contact the blocking admin to see what the full story is. If there's no consensus on it, then I'd take start a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard to review the block. The process is clear for dealing with these types of disagreements, so I can't see any reason that I wouldn't adhere 100% to the policies.SkierRMH 18:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

General comments

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

• Links for SkierRMH: SkierRMH (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/SkierRMH before commenting.

Discussion

• Oh come on. This guy is quite obviously some kind of sock. Nobody (except Gurch) turns up at Wikipedia and immediately starts making thousands of repetitive gnomish edits that don't really affect content - it's a pretty obvious ploy to rack up edits. Astounding that people are so obsessed with edit counting they see a big number and rush blindly to support, regardless of the quality of the edits. 86.137.61.15 22:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, what additional evidence do you have that this is a sock account? It's a pretty serious charge but I'm willing to hear you out. Pedro :  Chat 

It'd be one thing if he did that for one or two months. But he's been doing it for so much longer. Does anyone have that much persistence? Dihydrogen Monoxide 00:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

No need for a feeding here, in the absence of evidence, let's move along... Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. Wow! Brusegadi 07:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
2. Obviously, per my nom. Dihydrogen Monoxide 07:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
3. Doesn't meet my criteria - only has 40,000 75 000 edits, my minimum is 80k. Sorry man. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
4. Has 74865 80049 Edits at the moment. --Oxymoron⁸³ 07:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
5. Support I echo Brusegadi. Wow KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 08:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
6. Support No concerns here. Would be a great admin. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 09:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
7. support Meets my criteria. This user is experienced, civil, and is not likely to abuse the tools. Good luck!--SJP 11:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
8. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 15:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
9. I don't know - he may need to spend some more time on WP to learn the rules... Oh, what the heck. Support. :P  _{Folic_Acid | talk}  15:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
10. Support Mild concerns over speedy deletion knowledge removed by a good answer to my question. Don't burn out would be my only piece of unasked for advice. Best of wishes. Pedro :  Chat  16:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
11. Support per his contributions. Not just a large number of them, but good ones such as saving images which will be deleted. A bit concerned about the loading time of his edit count though ^_^. -- Jack 16:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
12. Wow. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
13. Wow? — Dorftrottel⁠ 16:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

    I'd just like to add a "Wow" here. Cheers, Dihydrogen Monoxide 21:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

14. I suppose :) Rudget _zŋ 17:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
15. Oppose per dissident (EVula, you started a trend.) also, not enough portal talk edits. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 17:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
16. Support huge number of edits, looks like a good Wikignome, and great answers. Bearian 17:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
17. Support. SkierRMH is an active member of the film project. In July, I disagreed with two of his assessments, (an inconsequential matter) and I was impressed with the editor's maturity, civility, willingness to listen, and steps taken to resolve the problem. This user has the requisite skills for adminship, however I would ask that the user implement some form of {{archivebox}} on their talk page to make past discussions open and transparent. —Viriditas | Talk 19:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

    Your wish is my command! - Archive box added. -- SkierRMH (talk) 22:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

18. Strong Support I'm impressed! GlassCobra 20:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
19. Support More hardworking editors! - Darwinek 22:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
20. Support, has met my standards :) (Yes, it was a joke. I've been working on an article all day, so did not come back and check here). Majorly (talk) 23:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

    What, just for yet another article you left us guessing whether it was a joke?! |dorf|trottel| |mess|age| 23:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

    Of course it was a joke. But I'd like to say here that I apologise for any upset caused by my comment. Such a thing would of course be completely unintentional, and of course I'd never make real opposes like that. I have supported the candidate, and I hope we can put this error behind us. Regards, Majorly (talk) 23:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

    Let's move on and not disrupt this candidate's request any more. Pedro :  Chat  —Preceding comment was added at 23:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

    I've removed the colloquy about the joke !vote to the talkpage to avoid further confusion. Newyorkbrad 00:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

21. Crap, I completely forgot to nominate you myself. I feel ashamed now, because you're definitely deserving of the tools. Strong Support Wizardman 01:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
22. Support no concerns here. NHRHS2010 talk 01:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
23. Support - good answers to questions, and not overly concered about his bot programming skills. Overall, trustworthy candidate. Addhoc 15:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
24. Support - other than the low mainspace experience, this user looks fine, with a big lot achieved in a relatively short time on Wikipedia! Lradrama 19:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
25. Support — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 02:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
26. Support Jmlk17 11:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
27. Strong support Absolutely! Dedicated and trustworthy contributor. Jogers (talk) 23:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
28. Yep. - Philippe | Talk 01:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
29. Support --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 13:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
30. Daniel 08:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
31. Support - Garion96 (talk) 21:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
32. Support - Per answer to Question 1, and the nom. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 12:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC).
33. Support, I've dealt with SkierRMH several times and always found him to be pleasant and clear in communication. These are some of the most important qualities an admin can have. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
34. No convincing reason to oppose. Acalamari 17:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
35. Support - I think there's enough edits here... great job.   jj137 (Talk) 23:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Poor communicator, sloppy bot writer, does not clean up after his bot. (See User talk:SkiersBot) — Sebastian 00:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
2. strong oppose actual content creation percentage is close to zero. Of these created, half are articlers about saints most probably cut and pasted from Catholic Encyclopedia, others as album stubs, with content mostly copied with litle concern of giving credits. `'Míkka>t 00:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

   The diff you cite was made almost a year ago... Dihydrogen Monoxide 00:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

   The up-to-date listing can be found on my user sub-page here) and, for the record, if one looks at the articles that I created, including the one cited, as soon as this oversight was pointed out to me, I went back (for example see [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] to name a few) and made the appropriate citations. Mea culpa for a newbie error, learned my lesson well ;)SkierRMH (talk) 07:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Too many edits – Gurch 00:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

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