Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Smartse

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

Smartse

Final (129/0/1); Closed as successful by –xeno^talk at 15:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination

Smartse (talk · contribs) – I've been editing consistently for the last two years, having made around 18,000 edits. I'd now like to take the next step and ask the community whether it is time to hand me the mop. I've worked in most areas of the project and feel that I have sufficient experience not to make any major mistakes if I'm given the extra responsibility of adminship. If anyone wonders what happened to me last May and June, I requested that I was blocked so that I could concentrate on revising for my finals, I'm happy to discuss and explain this further if anybody thinks it is relevant. SmartSE (talk) 15:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

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

A: I intend to continue to work in the areas I'm most familiar with, at WP:COIN and at WP:DYK. I'd also like to help out at CSD, PROD and AfD; although I'm not overly active in these areas, I'm confident that I understand the relevant criteria for deletion and would be willing to help keep these areas as backlog free as possible. I often patrol the COI filter and in cases where usernames are not appropriate per WP:U it would be useful to be able to directly block the accounts, rather than report them to WP:UAA for other admins to deal with.

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

A: Article wise, I'm definitely most proud of mephedrone as this is the article I've spent most of my time working on. In particular, I'm proud of my work there as I helped to keep the article up to date and accurate, whilst managing to avoid the myths and speculations published by supposedly reliable sources. Of my 24 DYKs, I'm most proud of Dikerogammarus villosus which was used last Halloween with the hook "did you know that killer shrimp have invaded Western Europe and could soon invade North America?", but my first DYK will always have a special place in my heart too.

Maintenance wise, I'm proud of the efforts I've made at COIN to try and keep the project as free from promotional material as I can. It's an area that unfortunately not that many people work in, but which I think is important to maintain the project's integrity. As well as removing promotional puffery, I've also helped to explain to editors how they can edit in accordance with the guideline.

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: Of course, mainly related to work at COIN, but also some content related disputes. My main conflict was with Turqoise127 surrounding this AfD of an article they had spent a lot of time on, which I nominated for deletion. When it was deleted, they retaliated by nominating several articles I'd started for deletion, eventually leading to them being blocked. I tried to remain as civil as possible throughout to try not to escalate the conflict and once they started to retaliate I ignored them as much as possible, letting others take the necessary action. When writing content, I try and stick to 2RR or 1RR and start a discussion as soon as possible, once it is clear that there is a disagreement. Often the reason for a disagreement is that someone is not aware of a particular policy or guideline and once it is explained they tend to see why I've made the edit (or vice versa) and we can come to an agreement. If an argument becomes too heated or repetitive then I'm inclined just to forget about it and move on to doing something else, it helps to remember that nothing is that important or else we become stressed, which can lead to incivility. I fully understand that being an admin gives no one extra weight in discussions and so I would not change the way I behave in the future, other than to hopefully improve further in the way I have done since I started to contribute.

Additional optional question from Hasteur

4. Without going into the specifics of your Wikibreak, how do you intend to balance personal and work commitments with potentially time sensitive requests made to you as an Administrator?

A: It's a bit difficult for me to provide a precise answer to this question as I have had few commitments over the last few months. Generally speaking though I haven't found this a problem before as most requests take half an hour or less and that amount of can always be found within, at most, a day of someone asking a question. I know you asked for me not to go into the specifics of my wikibreak, but hopefully you won't mind me saying that I needed to work >10 hours a day, which is why I didn't want to get distracted. I hope that I never have to work like that again, so I hope that this would never become a problem. If I was completely unable to handle a request, I'd either drop a note on another admin's talk page or at the AN to ask if someone could take care of it on my behalf. SmartSE (talk) 18:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank You. I just wanted to ensure that inquiries to you about administrative actions were not going to be left for days on end without any sort of feedback. Hasteur (talk) 13:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Additional optional question from Cube lurker

5. What thoughts did you take away from WP:NEWT and more specificaly the reaction by the community?

A: At the time I wrote up my thoughts here. I think the most important thing I took away was remembering what it feels like as a newbie to have the first article you write nominated for deletion. The first article I created with this account was speedied as A7, despite the subject being notable so I knew how this felt before, but it was interesting to re-experience the feeling. I think I did before, but since then I always follow the principles of WP:BEFORE, regardless of the proposed deletion route. Whilst it's important to deal with attack pages and vandalism quickly, I think we should try to reach out to good faith newbies, since they are essential for the project's long-term survival. Regarding the community's reaction, I didn't follow the discussions in detail at the time, but I think that the main problem was that the community wasn't consulted enough before the experiment began. If a consensus had been reached for the project to occur, then I imagine it wouldn't have caused so many problems. Whilst, in my opinion, it was a noble cause others thought differently, mainly because they felt that they were being tricked by experienced editors into making mistakes and then being chastised for doing so. We obviously need to encourage new users, but on reflection, outreach programs such as the online ambassador program and GLAM are better routes than testing the work of NPPs. SmartSE (talk) 23:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Additional optional question from Coffee

6. What is your personal take on BLP1E?

A: In general I support the principle of the guideline, though I have to admit that I haven't taken part in many AfDs where it has been argued over. As a notability guideline, it is of course an area where people have differing opinions and there can't be any hard rules to determine whether or not we should have an article on somebody. Taking a current example which I noticed is at AfD, I think that Steven Slater should be redirected to JetBlue flight attendant incident since although the event has evidently had enduring coverage, the biography contains almost nothing about the person - for example what he is doing now, how old he is etc. - so I don't think WP:BASIC is met. SmartSE (talk) 23:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Additional optional question from Groomtech

7. Would you see it as part of the admin role to issue orders, for example, banning a user from a page or topic? If so, what process would you employ?

A: The short answer: No. Being an admin doesn't give anyone extra say in a discussion and it certainly doesn't mean you can issue orders. The more complicated answer: Obviously there are occasions when editors do need to be topic banned, but that is a decision for the community at ANI, or for Arbcom to make, rather than a single admin. On the other hand, I have often recommended that editors avoid editing articles where they have a COI and so would continue if I were an admin. SmartSE (talk) 23:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Additional question from Keepscases

8. Please click "Random Article", improve the article somehow, and tell us what you did.

A: I'm not sure what this has to do with my ability to function as an admin, but since you asked, I hit upon Guolehis Suolojávri - apparently a small Norwegian lake . I couldn't find any references in google books, scholar, news or standard that aren't mirrors or forks, or any images that could be added to show where it is. I removed an orphan tag as two articles link to it, that's all that I could do to improve it. SmartSE (talk) 00:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Additional optional question from Jclemens

9. DYK has had some problems with plagiarism and copyright in the not-too-distant past. What's your take on the problem, how it's been dealt with so far, and your opinion on the importance of "close paraphrasing" in matters of copyright?

A: Firstly, I think an important thing to note is that plagiarism and copyright are project wide issues, DYK encourages content creation and therefore it is more likely to occur at DYK, but I don't think it is much more of a problem there than elsewhere. Secondly, I think that in 90% of cases, it is accidental and that once it has been spotted and the editor responsible has been educated as to what is and isn't acceptable the problem will stop. We can deal with it at DYK by checking manually, but in the long term it would be great if an intelligent bot could take short phrases, google them, and produce a report on each article, indicating how likely plagiarism is. There was some discussion about this, but I gather that it's not possible at this time. I think the new reviewing system we've had in place since the start of the year will help, since reviewers should pay closer attention, rather than being rushed to make sure there are enough hooks for the next update. Close paraphrasing is a more tricky beast as it is harder to detect and editors are less likely to know that it is forbidden. It's something that we need to be on the look out for, and I consider it bad form, as it is using someone else's work as your own. I think part of the problem is that sometimes a source does say something in a particularly good way and it can be hard to rephrase it without changing the meaning, something particularly relevant when editing contentious articles. The way around this is to quote short sections if you have to, but try to write as much as you can yourself. SmartSE (talk) 11:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Additional question from Ryan W

10. I asked you a question earlier but someone didn't want you to see it. I will ask it again but in a more polite fashion. How do you solve the inconsistent treatment of articles and procedure in Wikipedia? There are too many to list. If you don't understand what I mean by inconsistencies, consider the following. Articles on Amanda Knox and Reactions to Rep. Gabielle Giffords have been repeatedly denied yet Jerald Lougher (or whatever he spells his name, he shot Giffords), the Boston Craigslist killer and Reactions to the Sichuan earthquake are permitted. It seems like administrators can make decisions any way they want and make up some excuse to justify it. For example, for Amanda Knox, adminstrator 1 could easily dream up an excuse to delete citing BLP1E but administrator 2 could easily dream up an excuse to keep citing the continuous international coverage on the person. That same adminstrator 2 could easily dream up an excuse to delete. Question 10 is how you can solve this problem. Question 10b is whether there can be linkage of past decisions, not necessarily changing past decisions, but using past decisions to strengthen the collective opinion on how to decide. Ryan White Jr. (talk) 05:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

A: I'm quite glad you've replaced this, asking in a more polite way. I'll AGF on both your part, and on Drmies for removing it the first time, as I'm sure neither of you meant to cause unneccessary drama and that you both have valid reasons for your actions. On to your question: I'm not going to go into the specifics of the cases you cite, since I'm confident that the decisions will have been made according to the community consensus. In terms of dealing with inconsistencies, I think the main points to make are that the project is not democratic and that our policies and guidelines are deliberately flexible - exceptions can be made either way, according to how the discussion moves. I don't think it is correct, and I certainly hope it is not, that "administrators can make decisions any way they want" - as I said at the end of Q3 this isn't what being an admin is about. It's the task of an admin to weigh up the arguments made in a discussion and come to one decision, which I hope you can see in contentious cases, like those you cite, could be very tricky indeed. Unfortunately they are jobs that someone has to do and I admire those who are prepared to put their neck on the line to make tricky decisions. If an editor disagrees with the decision of an admin in a deletion discussion, they can always initiate a deletion review where other editors can discuss the final decision that was made and overturn if it was not in line with consensus. We all have disagreements about what should and shouldn't be included in the project, but where the rest of the community disagrees, (like here for myself, not that my poor deletion rationale helped), we just have to swallow our pride and move on to doing something else. This is getting towards TLDR, but the point I'm trying to make is that I don't think there is a particular problem to solve in the first place. Regarding 10b, I'm certain that we shouldn't cite past decisions as a basis for making another decision. Firstly, each decision should be made with the facts presently available about the subject, and secondly consensus can change either way. I have to admit, that the way of making decisions round here can seem wacky and disjointed on occassions, but in my time here, I've generally found that the policies and guidelines are conducive to allowing us to write an encyclopedia, which, after all is the reason we are here. SmartSE (talk) 11:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Additional question from Off2riorob

11. Are you open to recall and if you are do you have an idea of the basic detail?

A: I most certainly am in principle, since broadly speaking I think that every admin should be automatically open to recall, although this is clearly a contentious issue with good arguments on both sides. I hadn't looked into the procedure in detail before you asked and the related project pages are a bit of a muddle, but this model looks to maintain a sensible balance, between it being relatively easy to be desysopped if I start to make lots of actions against the wishes of the community, but allowing some grace for the occassional screw up. As well all make mistakes, if I get the mop, I'll probably use this model for my recall. I'd hope that it would never be necessary though, and that if someone had a problem with my actions, that they would let me know and I would consider reversing my action, or asking at ANI for input from other editors. SmartSE (talk) 15:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Totally agree there, we all make mistakes as is it human to err, Lar's accountability essay is more than acceptable. Recognizing our missies and having the flexibility to correct them is something your comment echoes, I am sure it won't be needed but thanks for the reply. Off2riorob (talk) 15:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

A last-minute-ish question (well, last day-ish) from Phantomsteve
oh, and Ged UK (talk · contribs) would quite like to know the answer too

12. Who Put the Bomp (In the Bomp, Bomp, Bomp)?

A. Well, I may have well missed an important policy or guideline which could change this answer, and this is not an area I've worked in before, but I guess that it was either Gerry Goffin or Barry Mann. SmartSE (talk) 14:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

General comments

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/Smartse

• Links for Smartse: Smartse (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Smartse can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.

Discussion

• Editing stats posted to talk page. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Note: I think we can go with a snow close? --Perseus, Son of Zeus ✉ sign here 16:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

• WP:RIGHTNOW closures have not (yet) been embraced by the community. –xeno^talk 16:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Support

1. Yes. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
2. It seems that you'd make a great admin. Best of luck, Ajraddatz (Talk) 16:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
3. Support. SmartSE's made a good impression at DYK as a helpful reviewer. I haven't looked through all 88 of SmartSE's article creations, but the ones I've looked at so far appear well-written and well-referenced, suggesting an editor who knows what they're doing. 28bytes (talk) 16:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
4. Support longterm clueful user, with a clean blocklog (I don't count requested blocks for wikibreaks). I've encountered Smartse a number of times on wiki and have no hesitation in supporting as Smartse is more than ready. Nice to see Smartse is also an FAC reviewer, I think that FAC reviewing tests ones ability to communicate and collaborate over some of our best content. ϢereSpielChequers 16:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
5. Support - I have no concerns here. The user seems to have good experience in multiple areas and interacts well with other editors. I believe Smartse can be trusted with the tools.P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 17:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
6. Risker (talk) 17:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC) I'm going to take a moment to make a few comments here, but they do not adversely affect my support. SmartSE, it would be good to take a little bit of time to help otherwise good-faith editors with problematic usernames to find more suitable names; blocking should not ordinarily be the first option when a recommendation to change username can often be made without a block. You'd be surprised how many people of good faith will cooperate if addressed politely and without the assumption that they're up to no good. The templates that we often see are confusing and condescending, particularly the UAA block template. Perhaps you would also consider joining the unblock-en-L mailing list, as this is where many requests related to UAA blocks wind up. Risker (talk) 17:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

   Of course, I should have maybe made it clearer in my nomination. I'm not a particular fan of {{Uw-spamublock}} as I think this it is a bit bitey in most cases and would prefer to use {{Uw-softerblock}} or {{Uw-causeblock}} instead and add a note offering assistance. SmartSE (talk) 17:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

7. Trustworthy and clueful. ceranthor 17:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
8. Support Absolutely, and about time! Much clue observed from this user at COIN and DYK where our paths have crossed. Talk page is full of "Thanks" messages and inquiries from new users where helpful advice is usually given. Will be a great admin. Arakunem^Talk 17:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
9. Support – contributions seem to be fine. No problems here. --Perseus, Son of Zeus ✉ sign here 17:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
10. Support - Everything about this user appears positive! Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
11. Secret ^account 18:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
12. Support per nom. --John (talk) 18:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
13. Support. Good work at COIN. --JN466 18:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
14. Provisonal support based on looking at speedy deletion work. Seems solid there. Protonk (talk) 18:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
15. The candidate obviously knows what he or she is doing. I get that impression not only from things like FAC review experience, but from scanning back through the contributions and looking at those related to Julian Assange, Wikileaks and Mark Stephens (solicitor). Also, the candidate seems to give appropriate scrutiny to DYK entries: it appears he/she does a "second review" of all entries when moving them to the prep area ([1]). The candidate clearly knows deletion policy well: despite not being a regular new-page patroller he/she clearly understands speedy deletion policy and will scrutinise bad speedy deletion tags appropriately ([2]). Obviously when an editor gets involved in difficult content work, they'll run up against other editors, and everything I've seen looking back through the contribs shows that the candidate deals with editing disagreements in an excellent way. To the candidate: thanks very much for putting yourself forward.--Mkativerata (talk) 19:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
16. Support I have to say that you were very patient during your requested block! Patience is important for any user who likes to be an admin. Also, you do have a fair bit of content creation and trust, so I'll support the nom for these reasons. Minimac (talk) 19:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
17. Support. Smartse has always been helpful, courteous, informative, fair, and concise. Smartse avoids drama, and uses discretion. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 19:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
18. Inka⁸⁸⁸ 19:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
19. Support He did a great job dealing with a COI editor on an article that I created last month. I trust he'll be an excellent admin. Qrsdogg (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
20. Support - Smartse has been very helpful to me as a newcomer to Wikipedia. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
21. Yes No issues. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 19:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
22. Support I have seen you around and you look like you know that you are doing. Keep up the good work! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
23. Clueful editor; interactions have been nothing less than pleasant. sonia♫ 20:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
24. Support. No red flags, plenty of experience. Civility and patience has been demonstrated. You have my support. --Quartermaster (talk) 20:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
25. Support I suppose that opposing you on the grounds that the SVG on your userpage crashed my browser when I tried to view it would make for a crappy oppose. Really though, that's all I or apparently anyone else, could come up with. You seem like a solid net plus. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
26. Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
27. Support. SmartSE is a helpful and positive contributor, and I think they have clue to spare. Drmies (talk) 22:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
28. I've seen you and interacted with you at DYK, and based on that, I think you'd make a fine administrator. You've contributed 24 DYK articles and have helped promote four Good articles. This shows that you are interested in expanding the encyclopedia and that you know Wikipedia's core policies. You use edit summaries almost 100% of the time, as can be seen here. According to this, over 50% of your edits have been to the mainspace. A quick look at your contributions shows that you also partake in some vandal fighting. You've shown that you are a mature, responsible editor that can handle the extra tools and use them wisely. You have my full support. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 22:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
29. Consistant, strong work at COIN and UAA.  7  23:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
30. Absolutely. From what I have seen, you have demonstrated that your judgment can be trusted and that your interactions and contributions have only been for best interest of the encyclopedia. Calmer Waters 00:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
31. Support. Clueful, and more admins who understand and are willing to deal with conflict of interest issues are very much needed. – Athaenara ✉ 00:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
32. Support Polite, helpful, level-headed, a regular "Dr. Katz", and most importantly, completely unaware that wanting to be an admin is insane. What more could Wikipedia ask for? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
33. Support. Easy decision - great candidate who's knowledgeable, helpful, friendly, and has great experience. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
34. Support—yes of course. Someone who knows what he's doing. Airplaneman ✈ 01:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
35. Support Keepscases (talk) 01:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
36. Support He certainly deserves the tools. WAYNESLAM 02:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
37. Support - Surprised to see this RfA as I thought SmartSE was an admin. A highly valuable contributor with in-depth knowledge all across the project. i'm very happy to support this candidate. - Hydroxonium (H₃O⁺) 02:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
38. Good attitude, good communication, good knowledge, strong candidate, happy to support. Townlake (talk) 02:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
39. Support Candidate appears clueful, no trust issues seen. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 02:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
40. Excellent work at UAA. Regarding the criticism of his UAA work above, I've never noticed anyone at UAA criticize his work, and none of us are hesitant to point out problems when we see them. - Dank (push to talk) 03:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
41. Ucucha 03:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
42. We need to bang on the tree a bit harder, if this is the type of candidate that falls out... Courcelles 03:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
43. Support Everything that I've seen has been done right, no issues. Royalbroil 04:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
44. Support Everything looks excellent --Guerillero | My Talk 04:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
45. Support 17K edits without even a single block seals the deal. EngineerFromVega^Discuss 04:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
46. Yup NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 05:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
47. Support - I see no concerns with the candidate having the tools. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 06:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
48. Support. Everything looking good . Plus, my special selfnom points are also due, so technically this is 2 1/2 supports. Please amend tally accordingly. Bishonen | talk 06:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC).
49. Support. Groomtech (talk) 07:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
50. Support. I am always glad to see Smartse pop up in my editsphere, and I am happy to find that the familiar excess of good sense and dedication to getting an encyclopedia written extend to many areas of the project. - 2/0 (cont.) 08:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
51. Stephen 08:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
52. Support. Looks good to me! -- œ^™ 09:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
53. Support. I like the attitude evinced by this editor in answering the questions. So support. MarmadukePercy (talk) 09:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
54. Great attitude, great answers to the questions while at the same time not being afraid to question the value of one of them. Most importantly of all, clearly understands AfD and our notability policies, and does not see it as the vote that far too many participants seem to nowadays. —WFC— 11:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
55. Support. Experienced candidate who has competently handled every pointless "optional" question that was thrown at him. AGK [•] 11:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
56. Support. Great candidate. Have trawled through lots of your contribs at random and cannot find even the smallest concern. I'm impressed you answered q4 though, I think I would have refused. You're a better person than me, clearly.--Korruski^Talk 12:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
57. Support Good editor; worked with and around at DYK. Cool and calm; would make a good admin.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
58. Support. Answer to my question removed only point of concern about candidate. Hasteur (talk) 14:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
59. Support. Seems fine to me. -- බිඟුවා ^{සාකච්ඡාව} 14:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
60. Support. I don't see any red flags or concerns. Seems competent enough to me. Cind.amuse 14:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
61. In all my prior interaction with the candidate I have only had positive experiences. Will make a great admin. StrPby (talk) 14:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
62. Support. Obviously a quality candidate - and I am impressed by the candidate's knowledge of the Orphan Criteria, as per question 8. Good luck, UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
63. Certainly; no alarms, no surprises. I've come across them a few times, and always found them helpful and communicative, primary qualities in an admin. GedUK  15:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
64. Support Hard working editor, strong work at DYK. The Interior(Talk) 16:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
65. Support. Competent and clueful candidate. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
66. Support Satisfied with history and responses. I was going to oppose per Bill Conlin but I didn't trust some of you to get it.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
67. Support Every interaction has been positive, plenty of clue, long-time productive editor. First Light (talk) 17:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
68. Support - everything looks clean. I'm particularly impressed by the candidate's answers to the above questions. PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 18:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
69. Support - looks fine to me. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
70. Strong support Experienced, clueful, trustworthy, highly active since the beginning of 2009, cerebral answers - this is close to the "ideal" candidate --Hokeman (talk) 18:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
71. Support Hard-working, helpful at DYK, creative, and knows a lot about flatworm sperm duels as per this diff. Sharktopus^talk 19:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
72. Support - clearly has clue and can be trusted with the tools.--Michig (talk) 20:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
73. Strong support – valued WP:MCB contributor, very helpful, patient, and a pleasure to work with. No doubt will put the tools to good use. Boghog (talk) 20:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
74. Strong support. Competence, trustworthiness and civility all well-demonstrated. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
75. Support. Excellent candidate; will do well with the tools. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
76. Support. No brainer. Fences&Windows 21:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
77. Yes. Good contributions. Thoughtful. Intelligent. Seeks and builds consensus. Should make an excellent admin. SilkTork *^YES! 21:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
78. Support. I know the name. I can't for the life of me remember from where, but it obviously left a positive impression. I don;t see anything that would make me question that impression, so I'm happy to support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
79. Support. Handing this candidate a mop will significantly raise the standard of the administrator corp. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
80. Support. I'm glad to see candidates with interests in biology-related pages. I spent some time reviewing your edits at Mephedrone, and I am satisfied about your understanding of content creation. I also looked at your archived comments at Talk:Julian Assange, where you've navigated some contentious arguments (and I do see a few instances where others got under your skin, but nothing that raises alarms for me about your composure), and you know how to work with users who are in disputes. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
81. Strong support, per my past interaction with this user. Thank you for volunteering. Materialscientist (talk) 01:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
82. Support No valid reason to oppose.--White Shadows ^{We live in a beautiful world} 01:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
83. Support Everything looks good with this candidate, will make a fine admin. Dreadstar ☥ 02:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
84. Support. Looks good.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
85. Support. The candidate is helpful, knows his way around, and quite productive. Majoreditor (talk) 03:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
86. Support. Solid candidate. --Sharkface^T/_C 03:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
87. Support:Good luck! --Monterey Bay (talk) 05:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
88. Better to have someone who knows that they need a block to stop from editing, than someone who doesn't. T. Canens (talk) 06:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
89. Support Will not drop the mop. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 06:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
90. Support. Good contributions. Sensible interactions with other editors. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
91. Support - looks fine to me. Deb (talk) 12:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
92. Support GoodGreat candidate! ThemFromSpace 12:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
93. Support - yes, will be fine with tools. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
94. Support – high quality work at DYK, helpful and encouraging comment / feedback at my present FAC, good answers to questions, all are reasons to expect SmartSE will continue to valuably contribute to Wikipedia with sysop permissions. EdChem (talk) 14:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
95. Happy to support. Acalamari 14:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
96. Support - Seems like a trustworthy candidate. ~NerdyScienceDude 14:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
97. Support - Fully competent and courteous, quality contributions and a top notch candidate. Off2riorob (talk) 15:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
98. Support - Reviewed a random selection of contributions from the past six months, liked what I saw. --j⚛e decker^talk 16:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
99. This is one of the more obvious RfA supports I've given in two and a half years of activity on this site. Smartse has smarts. He'll do fine as an admin. Master&Expert (Talk) 17:12, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
100. Support a skilled and committed editor. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 17:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
101. WP:100. Or 101, rather. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
102. Support - I "know" Smartse from DYK, where the user's work is excellent and the user consistently "plays well with others". --Orlady (talk) 17:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
103. Support. Why not? Mop and bucket are not a big deal, and my limited interaction with this user suggests he is not going to abuse them too much :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
104. Support. Fully qualified candidate, no concerns. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
105. Weak Support I can see that the candidate has plenty of qualities that will make a good admin. I was a little worried about the edits to these two files, [3] and [4] where there is missing evidence of permission, but I cannot check back to see what permissions the web site may have had on it at the time of the edits.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
106. Absolutely. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
107. Support. Put me down as one who thought he already was an admin, just packed it in for a bit while life intervened. Well qualified, sensible candidate Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
108. Support Seems like a capable and good choice...Modernist (talk) 00:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
109. Support There is not a doubt in my mind about Smartse or his capabilities and judgment. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 1:11pm • 02:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
110. Support SmartSE was the first regular editor I had contact with and our paths have crossed a few times since. Always helpful and I am yet to see a contribution or suggestion that I could fault. Does excellent work over a range of areas within the encyclopaedia and will make a great admin. AIRcorn (talk) 07:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
111. Support Appears to be a very good editor who I'd trust with the mop. Good luck! Worm 13:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
112. Support - great candidate. Orphan Wiki 13:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
113. Support I see nothing to indicate that the candidate cannot be trusted, and no red flags appear in a quick look at their contributions and history. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
114. Yes, Yes, Yes! Very qualified. :.:∙:∙∙:∙:.:|pepper|:.:∙:∙∙:∙:.: 00:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
115. Support per nom and many of the other support !votes.   — Jeff G.  ツ 04:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
116. Now support Ryan White Jr. (talk) 08:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC) (Note: Originally neutral, did not add !vote to support column. Moved here by Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) at 03:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC))
117. Support Yes! Baseball Watcher 20:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
118. Support Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
119. Support. Quarl ^(talk) 03:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
120. Support I've had several good interactions with this candidate; checking contribs and looking at question responses, and other comments here, I can see no reason to oppose, and have every confidence xe will make sensible use of the SysOp tools. Chzz  ►  09:33, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
121. Support: Looks like the candidate will make a great Admin. - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
122. Support Great candidate, should do well. Steven Walling 05:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
123. Support That self-block convinced me, this editor has self-discipline.--DThomsen8 (talk) 12:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
124. Support Good Track see no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
125. Support - fully meets my standards: in particular - over 17,000 edits (including almost 10,000 article edits), high-quality article work and sufficient WP edits, autoreviewer, reviewer, rollbacker, etc. We need more admins with scientific interest and expertise. Bearian (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
126. Support had only positive experience with him, convincing nomination. --Elekhh (talk) 02:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
127. Support Good candidate, hardworking and an excellent contributor. – SMasters (talk) 07:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
128. Support Solid answers to all questions, track record looks good, although the request for a self-block does strike me as being somewhat self-serving. I can, however, understand the reason behind it, so I can overlook (not that it would have really changed my opinion here, though, so I suppose I'm just babbling at this point). --Strikerforce (talk) 10:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
129. Support Just the sort of user who should be an admin, and nobody has come up with a real objection yet. —innotata 15:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

Leaning towards support since administrators should be good editors like Smartse is. Awaiting answer to my question to decide. Ryan White Jr. (talk) 04:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC) Now support Ryan White Jr. (talk) 08:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

1. Neutral Nothing wrong I can see besides the self-requested block, but that just seems a little off to me. I think it speaks poorly to self-control (or, self-perception of self-control), but not to the extent that I will oppose the nom. Jclemens (talk) 00:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

   I would think the self-requested block would speak more for self control (or at least self-awareness) then speak poorly. meshach (talk) 02:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

   One might interpret it as a lack of self control to keep oneself off wiki. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 03:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

   (Note, this isn't a personal belief but I'm being the devil's advocate) NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 23:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

   Or as a lack of self-importance, and therefore not being overly concerned about what others might think about having such a block log—a very good attitude, in my opinion. First Light (talk) 04:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

   Look, we all know Wikipedia can be addicting. The candidate had to study for finals and did what they felt was necessary to stay focused. Reminds me of the time my mother (life long struggle with weight) had the refrigerator padlocked. You do what you have to do.--Hokeman (talk) 05:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

   A self-block request is not against policy, although it is perhaps not approved of. Only six admins are categorised as being prepared to do it. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 17:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

   I would note as the blocking admin in this case that my criteria for making such a block are quite narrow, and Smartse made sure they met them all before asking for the block, unlike the majority of users who have asked me to do this and been refused. It is a rare occurrence and a courtesy I only extend to users in good standing. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

   Jclemens: I would be interested to know why an editor who once asked for their own account to be blocked would make a poor administrator. AGK [•] 13:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

   I'm curious, too. --It's me...Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 05:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

   "I think it speaks poorly to self-control (or, self-perception of self-control)" kind of sums it up for me. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

   Right... what else is there to say? There are plenty of people who've needed to take time off of Wikipedia and done so, without any hulabaloo about it. Thinking that you needed an external source to impose a technical prevention of one's access to Wikipedia, even at one's own request, is not congruent with my expectations for self-confident self-control. Jclemens (talk) 07:00, 1 February 2011 (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.