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

Sarcasticidealist[edit]

Final (52/0/0); Closed as successful by WjBscribe at 07:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcasticidealist (talk · contribs) - I'm nominating myself for admin-ship after creating my account a year ago next month, and being a pretty active editor since a couple of months later. I've now got close to five thousand edits, more than three thousand of which are to the mainspace. I haven't done huge amounts of admin-type work, but on those occasions in which I have sought page protection, reported vandals, reported inappropriate usernames, or reported socks, action from admins has followed, which I think speaks well of my understanding of those areas. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate[edit]

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: My major admin behaviour would involve monitoring WP:ANI, which has been on my watchlist for at least a few months anyway. I find that monitoring noticeboards of various kinds is one of the most interesting and satisfying experiences on Wikipedia.
I would also close AfDs when there were backlogs (AfD is one area in which I do have substantial experience), and monitor backlogs in other areas (WP:CSD, WP:AIV, WP:SSP, WP:Usernames for administrator attention, etc.) as needed. The important thing to note here, though, is that I have an excellent grasp of my own limitations; at the outset, my actions in each case would deal only with the most flagrant issues.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I'm first and foremost a mainspace editor, which I would expect to continue after receiving admin buttons. Within the mainspace, I'm probably proudest of my ongoing work developing articles on Edmonton's municipal elections. The one that I think is in the most advanced state (while still requiring additional work) is Edmonton municipal election, 1892. I've also done what I think is pretty good work in turning some articles on local politicians from stubs into start or B class articles (Joseph Clarke and William Hawrelak being representative examples). Finally, one night I was reading the Tom Petty entry and concluded that, from a purely organizational standpoint, it was a disgrace, so I tidied it up here (it's still lacking inline cites, probably includes some unencyclopaedic information, and leaves something to be desired in terms of its writing quality, but I'm pleased with what I did do.
Outside of the mainspace, I think I've done some nice work at WP:WQA (although I haven't been there in a couple of weeks) and WP:MCQ (although I leave the hard ones for User:Megapixie, who's much better at it than I am). I also organized Category:Candidates for the Canadian House of Commons, which didn't have any subcats when I started with it.
More generally, I'm very proud of the work I do helping new users navigate through the web of policies, guidelines, essays, and rules-ignoring that make up Wikipedia.
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: Easily my most stressful conflict was prompted by a Wikiquette complaint about an administrator deleting text from a talk page. While I recognized that there were legitimate reasons for doing so, I didn't think that the administrator had one in this case, and I found his WP:BLP-related rationale frankly ludicrous. The administrator in question was snide, condescending, and explicitly unwilling to engage in any kind of dispute-resolution process (while it was still at the Wikiquette stage, he told us that we might as well take it straight to ArbComm, because he wasn't going to participate in anything short of that). After a consensus of editors at both WP:WQA and WP:BLPN agreed that his actions had been inappropriate, he told us that in WP:BLP cases, consensus didn't matter.
Ultimately, thanks in part to some sage advice from User:R. Baley, I unilaterally disengaged. Looking back, I think it was the right decision, albeit still a profoundly unsatisfying one.
Besides that, I've had plenty of conflicts with people who wound up being blocked for various reasons (the conflicts in question always having to do with what eventually got them blocked). I also very early in my career had a friendly dispute with User:DESiegel about the notability of some of the articles I was creating. His behaviour in that dispute (patient, helpful, friendly) remains the model of how an administrator should behave in content disputes with new users, and I hope he'll return to the project at some point; if I had faced a less helpful administrator at that stage of my editing career, there's every danger that I would have been driven off completely.
Finally, I'm currently involved in a dispute at Talk:Peter Yarrow with regards to to what extent and how his criminal record for taking improper liberties with a fourteen year old girl should be dealt with in the article. If you have an opinion, feel free to drop by.

Optional Questions from CIreland

4. What, if anything, is the difference between "consensus" and "the opinion of the majority of editors"?
A:Ah, the challenge of defining consensus...
To my mind, consensus is different from a simple majority of editors in three major ways:
  • It requires a higher threshold. 50% + .5 is enough to make up a majority of editors, but it can't reasonably be called a consensus (provided we're counting all editors equally, which brings me to the next difference).
  • Not all !votes are equal in a consensus. single purpose accounts are likely to be partially discounted, especially if their single purpose appears to be the debate at hand. !votes accompanied by policy-based reasoning count for more than those that aren't (although !votes with no reasoning do count for something - nobody would seriously suggest that one !voter who cites policy overrules fifty who don't).
  • The process by which consensus is reached requires discussion and, ideally, compromise. This is not true of a simple majority vote.
Consensus is obviously something of a murky concept, which is why we don't have bots closing AfDs, but that's my best stab at it.

Questions from Avruch

1. What is the difference between a ban and a block?
A: A ban is a statement that a given editor is no longer welcome at Wikipedia or at a portion thereof. A block is a mechanism by which an account or I.P. is prevented from editing. Blocks are often used in the enforcement of bans, but are also used as temporary non-punitive measures to protect the encyclopedia from disruptive users who have not been banned.
2. If another administrator removes material from an article and cites a BLP concern as the reason - but you believe the material does not violate BLP policy and should be included- what do you do?
A: First of all, I don't see the relevance of this being another administrator. Administrators' special privileges begin and end with their new buttons, and removing material from an article doesn't make use of those buttons. Accordingly, I would deal with this hypothetical administrator in the same way that I would deal with any other editor.
First of all I would initiate a discussion on the talk page of the article from which material had been removed (if the administrator hadn't already done so). If it wasn't possible to reach a satisfactory consensus from there, I would take it up at WP:BLPN. If there was still no consensus, I'd make use of either WP:THIRD or (more likely, since you'd hope there were more than two editors involved by this point) WP:RFC.
Addition: I totally forgot to mention the part where I wouldn't revert the other administrator's edit until I had a clear consensus to do so.
3. If you wish to close an AfD that is still open after 7 days but you believe the consensus is against current policy, what action should you take?
A:I can't give a definite answer to this one, because there are too many variables. First of all, what kind of a "consensus" is this? If it's two editors who have responded with delete but haven't provided any policy rationale, I'd relist the AfD. If it's fifty users citing policy rationales with which I happen to disagree, then I close in accordance with consensus. If it's somewhere in between, it would have to be weighed on a case by case basis. But if there was a true consensus (see my answer to User:CIreland's question for some astonishingly vague elaboration on what I consider to be a true consensus) I would never presume to simply overrule it.
Another consideration is the nature of the article. If there were WP:BLP concerns, I would be more likely to err on the side of deleting the article, with the knowledge that there's always the deletion review process.
So, yeah: vague, weaselly answer, but it's the best I can do under the circumstances.
4. What is your opinion on administrator recall?
A:I understand where editors who say that this will result in excessive drama are coming from, but I don't agree with them. WP:RFC/Us in which community members rail against admins' actions without having the power to do anything about them are just as dramatic as heated RfA reconfirmations. With that in mind, I'm strongly in favour of some means of admin recall short of ArbComm. I don't know exactly what my ideal system of admin recall would look like, but it would have to have some kind of critical mass to be even worth experimenting with, and on that basis alone I'd be prepared to add myself to the category.

Optional Question from dustihowe

1. As you are a self-nom, you are open to criticism from some users who feel that self-nom's are power hungry individuals. Some of these users will go as far as to simply vote oppose to all self-nom's despite eligibility, stats, and expierence. There is one case that has come up here recently, where a user would simply attack all self-nom's. Had you been an admin at this time, how would you have handled this situation? Dustihowe  Talk  20:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A: I'm familiar with the editor you describe, and I don't think there's any need for administrator action against his opposes. Arguably, the closing bureaucrat should give his arguments diminished weight, but I'm not applying for bureaucrat. I obviously disagree with his opinion, but he's entitled to it.

Question from GlassCobra (numbered properly :P)

10. Just trying to get more insight into your CSD experience: When would you delete an article on the basis of A7? When would you not?
A. I'm of the view that A7s are overused on Wikipedia. For example, I have had articles on city councillors, that included reliable third party sources, tagged as A7s on the basis that WP:BIO states that municipal politicians are not inherently notable (in all cases, admins have declined to actually delete on that basis). Obviously, anything that "asserts notability) cannot be A7ed; the question is what constitutes an assertion of notability. My threshold is whether a staunchly inclusionist good faith editor who was familiar with Wikipedia policies would likely consider it notable. That's a little ambiguous, of course, and I'd be happy to respond to specific examples if you'd like to provide some, but determining what constitutes an assertion of notability is necessarily an inexact science. In general, though, I'd rather err on the side of a procedural AfD nom, since an AfD, unlike a CSD, helps advance the cause of consensus (as seen in WP:OUTCOMES). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, no more is necessary, you're okay by me. I was ready to support anyway, just wanted to get a little more input. It's always good having more inclusionist admins. :) GlassCobra 17:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

Fair enough on the first bit. As for wheel warring, WP:WHEEL defines this as two or more administrators undoing one another's administrative actions, so based on the letter of the policy that wouldn't seem to qualify. In any event, while I won't pretend that my answer (do not revert, take it up on talk page, etc.) was motivated by the considerations you mention, it's at least compatible with them. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right re the specific wheel warring policy, but recently there has been some serious ambiguity introduced (primarily by Jimbo, later recognized by ArbCom and an RfC on the subject). Anyway, not material, generally good answers. Avruchtalk 21:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support[edit]
  1. You're bold, ergo you have my support. --'n1yaNt 05:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Law Lord (talk) 06:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. During my brief interaction with SI, I found him to be a mature and respectful editor. To my delight, after looking thru the contribs, I also see that he is a well-rounded contributor with experience in both the mainspace as well as conflict resolution. I think he would make a superb admin. R. Baley (talk) 06:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Looking over your answers to the questions above, I see one thing that strikes a particular chord with me - That you have the ability to know when to cut your losses and withdrawal from a conflict even when part of you wants to continue arguing. This is an admirable quality that I wish I saw more of around here. Trusilver (talk) 07:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Admins with good writing experience are vital. Nick mallory (talk) 08:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support The work so far is good, and no reason for doubting the tools are in good hands. I do like your response to conflict. docboat (talk) 09:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support No concerns here so no reason to oppose. NHRHS2010 talk 11:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support There's nothing wrong that I can see. Good job. SpencerTC 12:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. Look's good to me. Malinaccier Public (talk) 12:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 13:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support I followed the discussions mentioned in question #3 as an outside observer and was impressed.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support - Rudget. 17:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Good answers to questions and no red flags in the candidate's contributions. CIreland (talk) 18:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support - trustworthy and helpful editor. Addhoc (talk) 19:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support - good contribs. The Transhumanist 19:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - Adminship is "no big deal", shows no signs they will abuse the mop. Tiptoety talk 20:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Answers show balance and thoughtfulness. This candidate will be an asset and not jump headfirst, an admirable and necessary quality in an admin.--Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support a good candidate, although I am somewhat worried by your assertion that "monitoring noticeboards of various kinds is one of the most interesting and satisfying experiences on Wikipedia" ;) --Stephen 23:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Was the self-nom for admin-ship not sufficient evidence of mental illness in and of itself? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support A strong candidate. --Sharkface217 01:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Solid candidate, good answers, and a fantastic username. Dorfklatsch 01:33, January 9, 2008
  21. Support - good candidate.   jj137 ♠ 03:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support per all above; extremely trustworthy and thorough. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 06:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Great contributor and answers indicate an all-inclusive knowledge of policy. Chris.B (talk) 21:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support as meeting my standards, and a great editor and helper, even if he is insufferably bold. Bearian (talk) 23:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Fine. —αἰτίας •discussion• 15:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Looks great! Let me know if I can ever be of any help. :) GlassCobra 17:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. In my experience of this candidate he has been helpful, patient, knowledgeable and calm. DuncanHill (talk) 17:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Strong Support I feel you deserve a chance, given your answer above. Dustihowe  Talk  20:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support per superb answers to questions by CIreland and Avruch. Good luck with the mop! Keeper | 76 21:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support - Per world + dog. Gromlakh (talk) 00:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support, good answers to the questions, no indication that they'll misuse the tools. Lankiveil (talk) 03:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  32. Support - all looks good. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Has over 3000 mainspace edits and over 5000 overall.no concerns as per track.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. Sensible answers to question and reasonable editing history. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support - Solid contributions, civil, and good answers to the questions. My experiences with you have been positive so no reason to oppose. Camaron | Chris (talk) 17:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. You're very human. I like your honesty about your issues with other users. I think that it's hard to always have users agree on all matters and I find it is disappointing to have some administrators come down with a matter like BLP to make a point, especially when there may be no clear BLP concern (I saw someone take off all the instances relating to George Michael being gay because there wasn't a direct reference, and stated that saying he's gay is BLP... where to me, saying he's straight is a BLP issue). Anyway, I heartily support you. You've got the stuff it takes. --rm 'w avu 02:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. can br trusted and good evidence of 'pedia building. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Modesty is an important attribute of an admin.--Alasdair 14:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. I like the way User:Rm w a vu put it. I believe you need the tools, and I believe you'll do good work with them. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. Excellent answers. Appears willing to take on controversial topics with an open mind and judical attitude. Royalbroil 17:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support per contributions and answers. ChetblongTalkSign 19:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support, the candidate has given good answers, and has made good overall contributions to the project. No concerns. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support, with pleasure. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 21:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support A great editor, good luck! Midorihana~いいですね？ 22:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Good user. Acalamari 02:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support a worthy editor with strong record. Doczilla (talk) 04:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Kusma (talk) 09:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support - presents no reasons to believe that the tools will be misused. John Carter (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. You can count on my support. The edits are good, the responses are good, the attitude is good. No problems here. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 22:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support: is a good user and will be a great admin. Tasc0 It's a zero! 23:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In the interests of full disclosure, while discussing an abusive sock/BLP violator with User:Tasc0 I mentioned "It looks like I'll be an admin in a few hours," so if the closing 'crat wants to ignore this !vote as a WP:CANVASS violation, so be it. I assume it's no big deal, since I certainly haven't done any other canvassing and since the consensus appears pretty decisive at the moment, but I figured I'd rather be the one to bring it up. Nonetheless, User:Tasc0, I very much appreciate your comments. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    From what I can tell through your talkpage (and Tasc0's), you and Tasc0 are both commenting on the same WP:SSP issue (specifically Fattown1c (talk · contribs)- you're not calling User:Tasc0 an abusive sock/BLP violator, are you? Your statement above looks like you are, or at least, that's how I first read it. Care to clarify - is that what you mean to say? Keeper | 76 00:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually clarified that right before your comment. User:Tasc0's good people. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Then all's well. Thanks for clarifying (I knew what you meant, but I had to do some digging for the benefit of others...). Cheers, Keeper | 76 00:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support; I thought you already were one! --Mhking (talk) 03:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support - Yes. --Bhadani (talk) 04:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support A great editor. Midorihana~いいですね？ 05:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC) (indented as you have already supported above)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
Neutral[edit]
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