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


Samir (The Scope)[edit]

Final (114/2/2) ended 23:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Samir (The Scope) (talk · contribs) – This user meets criteria for the ideal Wikipedian: heavy on content, slick with maintenance, and immensely polite and civil. His involvement in two WikiProjects (initiating one) has been totally constructive. I think he should become administrator before he becomes a gastroenterologist. JFW | T@lk 20:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination -- Samir धर्म 23:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support, irrespective of whether he accepts or not, remove if he doesn't--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91(review me!) 15:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Utter nominator support. The Scope for admin. JFW | T@lk 23:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support --WS 23:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Why, of course. Sensible, active, and polite. - Cribananda 23:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong Support - an unfailingly polite, helpful editor, committed to the steady development of Wikipedia, which exhibits patience and teamwork. Great asset. Rama's Arrow 00:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support I am impressed with his responses to the questions. Yanksox 00:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support per 2 page essay aka the question answers :) -Goldom (t) (Review) 00:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cliché. NSLE (T+C) at 00:28 UTC (2006-06-07)
  9. Support per nom. —Khoikhoi 00:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. Nothing to suggest privilege abuse. Kalani [talk] 00:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Strong Support despite dearth of edits in Portal talk per Bucketsofg - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Excellent answers, excellent editorial career. Xoloz 01:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Holy crap, NSLE ... Supported. Werdna (talk) 01:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Very Strong Support Samir apart from being a magnificent contributor is a very helpful & reliable person. I'm sure he will be a great asset with the mop. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 01:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support It is time to give him the mop. A great user. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support, great and friendly user. --Terence Ong 02:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Pace Minfo (neutral), I think his status as a Senators fan ought to earn him some sympathy votes, in view of how the series against the Sabres went. On a serious note, though, JFW succinctly enumerates the reasons for which the project would benefit from Samir's being an admin, and I concur heartily in his nom. Joe 02:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Strong support, great ed and a thoroughly nice bloke. Deizio talk 02:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support trust with tools, productive editor, seems very likely to make productve editor (although nom says "he should become administrator before he becomes a gastroenterologist" and I'd hate to think editorship would deprive the world of a needed gastroenterologist ;-} ) Pete.Hurd 03:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support --GeorgeMoney T·C 04:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support per all the reasons above. Nothing else to say that hasn't already been said. — Nathan (talk) 04:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support upon examination of edits and discussion entries.--Folksong 04:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. My interactions with him editing various medical articles have been good. He will make a fine admin. Nephron  T|C 04:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support All of my experiences with him in the medical world have been pleasant and his portal is especially cool. You can claim any of the medicine featured articles if you'd like! InvictaHOG 04:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Canucks over Sens Support - per Tawker. Oh well, the Sens are my 3rd team in line, (Canucks, Oilers, Sens) - but that has nothing to do with adminship does it :o -- Tawker 04:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. "Mighty Ducks über alles" support per Tawker. ;) -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 05:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. GizzaChat © 05:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Strong support - great user, calm, sensible and friendly.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. Kind, patient and talented - just the kind of admins we need. Phædriel ♥ tell me - 06:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support fully deserving. Nobleeagle (Talk) 06:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support - All my interactions with him have only increased my respect for him. - Aksi_great (talk) 06:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Supprot, He is being nice in Wikipedia, and good editor. Revert every vandals in Wikipedia. So, I nominate him as Admin. '''*Daniel*''' 00:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Strong Support. Of course yes. Amazing editor. Contributed in several subjects, including his special interest medicine. --Dwaipayan (talk) 07:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support -- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK 07:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Pretty obvious Support. DarthVader 07:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support - per his comments.. -- Lost 07:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support - A very good editor. Bharatveer 07:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support per NSLE. --Nearly Headless Nick 08:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. He is experienced enough and ready to handle admin tasks. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 08:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support genuinely nice guy. Keep up the great work.--Eva db 09:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support, sure. --Tone 09:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. Doctor and Wikipedian! Cool! - Darwinek 09:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. Great answers. — Ravikiran 10:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. Excellent answers to the questions. RandyWang (raves/rants) 10:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support A good editor with all qualities required become admin. - Holy Ganga talk 10:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support - For his good work, in main and project namespaces. He will surely help! Afonso Silva 11:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Super happy mega fun lightning support --james(lets talk) 12:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Passes the test. — Brendenhull (T + C) at 13:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. Good answer to question 3. Dr Zak 13:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support about time. Gwernol 14:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Pile-on! No reservations at all. Thatcher131 14:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support As a sysop, I was involved in the situation he described in Q.3. Before you draw out your daggers, gentlemen, let me hasten to tell you that I was the admin he contacted to look into the situation with the erring admin. I found the conduct of Samir to be unblemished through out that episode. I'd have liked to nominate him myself and write a long nom like the one below but I guess there is no need for that as Samir has answered the questions really well. --Gurubrahma 15:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. Consciencious, and clearly to be trusted with the tools. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 18:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Cliche Support, would make a good admin. Roy A.A. 18:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support. Excellent contributions, balance, and communication. ×Meegs 18:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support I have just decided to raise my standards for RfAs. However, you do meet my new ones. Steveo2
  57. Support - Polite and helpful. - Ganeshk (talk) 20:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support, without reservations. Sango123 21:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support pretty sure this isn't a dupe :P --digital_me(t/c) 21:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support Geo.plrd 22:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support Go Sens Go!! -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 22:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support -- Underneath-it-All 23:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support. Pepsidrinka 00:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support. Kirill Lokshin 01:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Sure! ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Jaranda wat's sup 04:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Merovingian {T C @} 05:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support excellent answers to the questions Eluchil404 08:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. He comes up with some of the oddest (and most educational) pictures of any editor I've yet encountered. Head and heart are in the right place. More candidates like this one please!TM Support ++Lar: t/c 12:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 12:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support This user would be a good representative/example of what a Wikipedian should be to other Wikipedians - he is polite and he contributes! I wish I could do as well. — CJewell (talk to me) 12:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support without question. Or, rather, with excellent answers to questions below and willingness to help out in backlogged areas. --Elkman 15:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support – Gurch 16:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support AvB ÷ talk 17:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support (I may support the Sens if they get rid of Krusty), good response to question 1, has shown familiarity with Wikipedia procedures. His willingness to be tarred and feathered in Toronto (and other underprivileged areas) as a Sens fan far outweighs his being a Sens fan. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support. Racing towards the century! But, I can not wait any more. --Bhadani 17:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support -- from The King of Kings 18:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support per nom (why have a gastroenterologist when we can have an admin?) and based upon my review of his userpage and contribs. Agent 86 20:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support would make a great admin —Mets501talk 20:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support - Kilo-Lima|(talk) 20:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support The Scope for admin. Mr. Turcottetalk 20:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support Friendly, polite editor with fine contributions history.--MONGO 20:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support Great answer to question 3. And per nom, and per above. Will be a great admin. --Guinnog 21:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support nice and civil editor. Thetruthbelow 21:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support. As I'm No. 86, I feel able in saying "per above". SoLando (Talk) 23:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support. I just reverted vandalism on his userpage, so you know he's doing something right. ;) Kafziel 23:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support ForestH2
  89. Support (almost WP:100!!!). great editor, unlikely to abuse admin powers--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 02:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support Saravask 03:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support seems like a very good choice for editor --Deville (Talk) 04:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support, excellent balance of traits needed for an admin. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Make it to WP:100 Support. I spy a good admin and look forward to a substantive editor. ImpuMozhi 06:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support Joe I 08:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support, he deserves a mop. MaxSem 12:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support excellent skills and piling on is fun! Shell babelfish 16:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support Deserved. -- Szvest 17:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™[reply]
  98. Support. Ticks all my boxes. Rockpocket 07:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support Fine contributor, both articles and images. No hesitation in supporting. WP:100 is that way --> --Cactus.man ✍ 10:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  100. His poetry is terrible. Kotepho 10:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support: as nominated. --Ragib 11:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support Extremely good contributor. With around 3,000 + edits, he does deserve to be an admin.Jordy 11:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support per nominator. My conversations with him have always been positive. +joturner 16:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support Gladly. Master of Puppets Giant Enemy Crab! 00:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support; user always kind and helpful. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 14:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support --Jay(Reply) 17:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support worthy of advancing to adminship. DVD+ R/W 22:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Thought-he-was Support A cliche that definetly applies here for me. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support Tintin (talk) 01:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Strong Support. Lots of experience, specific answers, significant contributions, and I find all the current oppose votes either silly or nonsensical. Grandmasterka 04:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support - appears to be level-headed, and is a good contributor from what I've seen. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 08:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support Highway Rainbow Sneakers 18:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support no brainer support of a candidate with solid credentials and good references. jbolden1517Talk 03:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support because s/he fails the ludicrous 1 FA test. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 14:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

#Oppose no templates on his userpage sigifying ability to comunicate in a non-native language and cannot prove such an ability. :-(Myrtone@Requests for adminship/Samir (The Scope).com.au 10:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting reason for an oppose. People can oppose for any reason or no reason at all, but how important is this ability in the larger scheme of things given that this is wikipedia-en? ++Lar: t/c 12:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why an admin has to be multilingual. Also, some users do not like to have userboxes/templates on their userpages, so I don't think your vote is providing fair rationale.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91(review me!) 12:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure I avoided Oppose votes for this reason because of my ability to speak Pig Latin at a near-native level. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wait Myrtone, aren't you Austrailian? I don't think it matters that he's not multilingual, you two speak near the same language anyways, just a differant accent. ;) The King of Kings 18:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever reason you opposed for, the issue has been taken care of. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 20:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A very strange reason to oppose. We've got plenty of Yanks who only speak English, and even that not very well! JFW | T@lk 20:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to his user page, he speaks English, French and Hindi! That sounds multilingual to me... smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 14:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The above oppose vote was removed by User:Myrtone86 himself with this edit. The edit summary was Now I realise that he does speak sveral languages but I had no way of knowing that, so I appologise, I am still not happy with robchurch's vote, the nazis are out of context. - Aksi_great (talk) 10:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose. Only one edit to image talk shows low participation in vital areas of the project. Also most of his last 5 edits are concentrated around double-balloon enteroscopy - there is no evidence he has contributed outside of this narrow field, for the last 10 minutes. The Land 18:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought this oppose was a joke till I saw that you were an admin. Not contributed to anything outside of narrow field for the last 10 minutes?? Only 1 edit to image talk? Aren't so many of his DYK's enough proof that his articles add value to wikipedia? - Aksi_great (talk) 19:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure I understand this oppose either. Normally, an article takes many more than 5 edits to come out as a good article and it sure doesnt get completed in 10 minutes. -- Lost 19:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, this one makes absolutely no sense. Perhaps it was a typo or something? —Mets501talk 20:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    A bizarre vote. This voter's own edit history would disqualify himself from adminship. JFW | T@lk 20:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Now I see: the edit summary was oppose, inviolation of WP:POINT. Or rather, invoking the Boothy443 gambit. JFW | T@lk 21:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. Fails Diablo Test despite 11 months here. Looks like a specialist in a limited field. But admins need to be wholesome with good judgement of a clever vandal and a clumsy editor. Anwar 23:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral good Wikipedian, I just don't se why he needs adminship. Oh, and he's a Sens fan. Minfo 23:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think his comments below speak for themselves. JFW | T@lk 02:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If you look at his reply to question number 1 on this page, you would realize the myriad uses he has for his administrative tools. Also, I don't see why the fact that "he's a Sens fan" should affect your judgement about him as a wikipedian, and whether he is trustworthy enough to become an admin.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91(review me!) 07:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think his comment ("he's a Sens fan") is in the same manner of jest that those who mentioned it in their supports did so. Pepsidrinka 00:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think those comments were there when I voted. If I had seen it I could support him, oh well. And the Sens Fan comment was meant in good humour, funny how these things don't carry over to internet. Minfo 20:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per question 2, you are well on your way. :) - Mailer Diablo 20:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments 


Username Samir (The Scope)
Total edits 3419
Distinct pages edited 2179
Average edits/page 1.569
First edit 04:05, July 17, 2005
 
(main) 1297
Talk 130
User 165
User talk 823
Image 95
Image talk 1
Template 7
Template talk 10
Category 2
Wikipedia 779
Wikipedia talk 27
Portal 80
Portal talk 3
 G.He 23:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: There are quite a few things I'd like to help with:
  1. Closing AfD's: I've started with the straightforward keeps, but I think I have the critical ability to read through more controversial AfD's in an attempt to find consensus. It's something I enjoy doing also
  2. Dealing with the backlogs on WP:SD: There can be huge backlogs, and I always find glaring candidates on RC patrol.
  3. Protecting pages from edit disputes: Many disputes get heated, and I think part of the dispute intervention technique is a cool down period on articles. More in (2) below
  4. Protecting pages from vandals: I frequently see RC patrollers getting targetted on their user and talk pages and, even though it's best to ignore, sometimes the attacks are very personal. I've put other user pages up for WP:RFPP before, but there's a backlog and I can see other users getting hurt by personal attacks. Would be great if I could just protect the pages myself.
  5. Blocks: WP:AIV backlogs can get long also. I would be conservative with blocks, especially initially, but I think I can use them effectively.
  6. Prod backlog: Another backlog I'd like to help with
  7. Miscellaneous: When I look at WP:ANI there are many miscellaneous situations that administrator action would be useful for. I'd like to assist there as well.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I've contributed a number of articles to Wikipedia that I am pleased with. I think that, in addition to policy issues, an understanding of content appropriate for the encyclopedia is important for an administrator. I've focused on "meaty" edits, where I've tried to add substantial content.
I do gastroenterology, and many of my contributions are related to that field, as I am able to add specialty knowledge. I enjoyed editing ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease (Mailer Diablo, the goal is WP:FA soon!) because I added a heap of material while referencing all my additions. I find adequate referencing is something that is lacking especially for medical articles. Similarly, I am pleased with gastric lymphoma and Schatzki ring which are also well referenced and became DYK's. After soliciting help from others to assist in editing these articles, I thought there was sufficient interest to start a Wikipedia:WikiProject, and I started WikiProject Gastroenterology to develop a strategy for improvement of GI related articles. I'm quite pleased with the start this WikiProject has had.
I have a specialty archive of medical photos that I think would be difficult to find, and I'm always pleased when I can add a very interesting photograph or a schematic to bring value-added to an article: endoscopic foreign body retrieval, gastrointestinal stromal tumor and brain tumor are some examples.
I'm also pleased with many non-medical articles (Ardeth Wood and Max Keeping are just a couple of examples). I'm always pleased when I can make a referenced article on a notable person I may not know much about.
Finally, I'm pleased with my contributions to WP:AfD, as I like to think hard about and research around the articles up for deletion, and not just put a vote down. I've hunted and researched articles up for deletion that I know little about (like Barrie Zwicker) and used the information to build reasonable articles, if it was appropriate. Danny Cedrone was a stub that was about to be CSD'd, but I'm happy that I researched into it and built it up a little -- other editors have built it into a very good article now. I think that whenever you have deletion powers, you need to take the time to address articles critically before pushing the button.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I usually come to Wikipedia to combat stress!! I do most of my heavy edits when I'm on call at night in order to take a break from other stressful situations.
I have been in a couple of conflicts that caused me a bit of stress. One situation that comes to mind was when I viewed another user was being criticized on WP:ANI. When the criticism turned into a personal attack, I felt it was unfair, and left a talk page message to an experienced sysop who had placed the personal attack. This was followed by a personal attack against me, and a little later to a block on another user who tried to help what was going on. So much stress! -- it was a night call and to boot, I had just run a code blue! I didn't know the sysop at the time, but when I looked through things, I saw that he seemed to be fairly reasonable and very experienced, and I think he was just having a bad day. Even though things were looking grossly unfair in my eyes, I thought it would be best to try hard to de-escalate the situation, and I think I did so, after a time period.
From this I also fully realized why an administrator should never use powers such as blocks, or page protection in disputes that they are personally involved with.
I think my real world job has offered me (too) many opportunities to learn dispute resolution strategies, that I can translate well onto Wikipedia. When I peruse WP:AN and WP:ANI, I see there are many opportunities to help out with dispute. It is paramount that an administrator remain neutral in dealing with these situations, and in facilitating discussion on talk pages and requests for comment (or even straw polls) on articles. If the situation becomes stressful for the administrator, it means that (1) other parties or admins should help out to ensure neutrality and (2) it may be time to take a break from that activity.

Thank you.
DriniQuestion

Do you think admins performing actions (deletions, blocks) for reasons not covered on policy should be sanctioned/punished? If so, how? -- Drini 01:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the question. I think these situations need to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. I realize that it is impossible to draft policy to cover all nuances on Wikipedia that are disruptive to the process of building an encyclopedia, and situations will inevitably come up where administrators will have to make decisions on uncharted ground. It's part of WP:BOLD in my eyes. Oftentimes common sense will guide things best: as the simplest example, obvious deletions of articles that haven't been listed per WP:CSD should be deleted.
There is however a limit to this, and administrators have to be accountable for all actions -- including non-policy related actions. If a decision to perform an action outside of policy meets with consensus disapproval, I think the feedback obtained at an RfC is more important than sanctions: it will help with the administrator's actions in the future, and it will help build policy or set precedent on that particular issue in the future. Yet, if the consensus is clearly that an administrator's actions were egregious or in bad faith, then I do think sanctions are warranted. The reason for the sanctioning would not be solely because it was an out-of-policy action, but would rather be based on the specifics of why that particular action was wrong. Currently, the best venue for handling sanctions in this regard would be WP:ArbCom. Sanctions would include anything from blocks to de-sysoping, as would be appropriate for equivalent bad-faith "policy" decisions. -- 02:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


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