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

Satori Son[edit]

(61/0/0); Originally scheduled to end 18:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC). Nomination successful. --Deskana (talky) 16:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Satori Son (talk · contribs) - I would like to present Satori Son for your consideration. This fine editor started with the project in May 2006 and since that time has accrued nigh on 10,000 edits across all facets of Wikipedia. He first came to my attention in the early days of the User Warning project, but then moved over and became a familiar name to a lot of you within the Spam WikiProject. As a regular around XfD, he very rarely votes with the oft seen as per rationale, preferring to leave concise comments, and linking to the relevant policy, which I believe is another demonstration of his clear understanding of correct procedure and policy. It's this conscientious approach that make the examining of his reports to AIV all the much easier from an administrative point of view, with clear reasoning as to why a block should be applied including warnings issued. With all this promotion of his behind the scenes work it would be easy to overlook his mainspace edits. Over half of his edits have been to Wikipedia main space, wikifying articles, adding references & correct links and the obligatory reverting of vandalism. Why his most edited article is Club Penguin, being far different from anything else he has worked on, I will leave to him to explain below. To finish, I wholeheartedly believe that Satori will make a fine administrator, and I sincerely recommend him to the community. Khukri 09:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly accept, and thank all in advance for their opinions. -- Satori Son 18:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: Initially, I will certainly be active in the areas in which I have the most experience, namely WP:AFD, WP:RPP, WP:AIV, WP:CSD, and likely WP:DRV/CR. And while I am always interested in getting involved in new areas of the project, please be assured I have no intention of using my shiny new buttons in areas of which I am unfamiliar.
Additionally, I will continue to assist with non-admin backlogs such as Category:Articles lacking sources, Category:All pages needing to be wikified, and Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages maintenance, among others.


2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: For the most part, my substantive mainspace contributions have been to elevate the contributions of others. To paraphrase Trialsanderrors, bringing neglected “F” or “D” articles up to a “C” or “B”. Some very modest examples can be found at User:Satori Son/Verify#Examples.
While these are somewhat minor subjects, I enjoy working on the fringes with articles that would otherwise not get much attention. Having somewhat of an immediatist philosophy, I believe even stubs should be useful as a research source as soon as they are written. So, as you can see, much of my mainspace works has consisted of formatting, providing proper references, and template tagging, but I also have conducted some substantial re-writes (and even created a handful). Many articles I have worked on were likely headed for deletion.
And while somewhat trivial, I am also proud of my WikiGnoming activities. As I’m sure many of you have found, it can actually be quite relaxing to spend some time repairing disambig links, wikifying, correcting minor spelling and grammar, and other “behind the scenes” edits (although the “Random article” link can be a little addictive…).
Unfortunately, I have not yet been directly involved in bringing an article to FA or GA status. I know this is an important issue for some, but please rest assured that I absolutely understand we are first and foremost writing an encyclopedia… which brings me to explaining my most edited article: Club Penguin. No, I don’t play the game, but my daughter used to. A lot. So, after it was kept from deletion on the third nomination, I thought it would be fun to introduce her to Wikipedia in a way she could identify with (and under proper adult supervision). After making some improvements, it occurred to me that I might even make it into a really great article, while at the same time showing my daughter how the process worked. I realized rapidly, however, that I was never going to get a GA from an article edited primarily by 8-10 year olds. Thus, my efforts there have been focused on a continuing struggle to keep the article free of fluff and spam (please don’t judge me by the current version; since Gwernol’s been on break, Adavidb and I are greatly outnumbered!).
Other work I am proud of includes my anti-vandal and anti-spam efforts. I have been preaching for quite some time that Raul's Sixth Law of Wikipedia, involving organized corporate Wiki-spamming, will continue to be a major problem for us. I am not quite as active at WikiProject Spam as I used to be, but only because there is a really outstanding core group over there that covers the bases very well. I do still chip in from time to time to help on the big jobs.
I’m also quite pleased with the sample fair use rationale I composed for DVD cover images at Wikipedia:Use rationale examples#DVD covers in the article about that film or video. I believe it is extremely comprehensive, covering virtually all of the relevant issues under U.S. copyright statutes and applicable case law. It’s also nice to actually get to use the old Juris Doctorate once in a while.
Lastly, though I am no longer active with these WikiProjects, I am proud of the extensive work I did on the ((WikiProject GeorgiaUS)) and ((WikiProject Atlanta)) templates. You can see fully populated versions at Template:WikiProject GeorgiaUS/Example and Template:WikiProject Atlanta/Example, respectively.


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: It is extremely difficult for any active editor to completely avoid conflict on Wikipedia. Like any online, semi-anonymous community, there is a small minority of bullies, trolls, fanatics, and puerile vandals. And since I have strong feelings concerning the social value and long-term goals of the project, there have certainly been times where I have been stressed. But two things have helped me keep that stress level to a minimum and avoid major conflicts. First is a Jimmy Wales quote from a Slashdot interview in 2004[1] that I kept on my user page for a time. I didn’t put it there to be a kiss ass; it really does help me keep things in perspective. Second is the essay No angry mastodons. A little personal background: My first few jobs out of undergrad were in the private investigations industry: executive protection, surveillance, undercover work, etc. In that job, quickly reacting to a perceived threat, usually by being extremely aggressive, kept me from being injured or worse many times, much like the early humans hunting mastodons. But having left that “excitement” behind, and now being much older, I have realized there is great wisdom in never responding to someone too quickly or angrily (especially since you can’t get slashed with a box cutter over the Internet). When my adrenaline flairs up on-Wiki, I’ll go grab a sandwich, play some Halo with my kids, anything else, then come back and respond with a cool head. Professionally, my litigation experience also has helped me a great deal to remain calm and thoughtful when being verbally abused. Some of my peers make hostile Wiki-vandals seem as scary as Elmo.
As I said, I’ve been pretty lucky. To my knowledge, I’ve been mentioned at WP:AN only one time[2] over the Jimmy Wales article, but I feel my actions were justified.
There have been a small number of complaints and constructively critical remarks on my talk page, all of which I have attempted to respond to with open-mindedness and utmost civility. Other comments left there have been, shall we say, less then helpful. Many of those I simply deleted without responding, others I tried to calm the person down or lighten the tension with humor. I try really, really hard to “discuss the edits, not the editor,” and I think I’ve done a pretty good job of avoiding pissing matches while still steadfastly applying sound policy.


Question by Betacommand
4: Why should you not be an administrator? this is not a loaded question, so please dont be offended —Preceding unsigned comment added by Betacommand (talk • contribs) 17:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not offended whatsoever. The short answer to your question is… it depends.
The long answer is, it depends on what standards for a successful adminship nomination you are applying. Since the RfA process has no established set of articulated criteria for a successful nomination, each editor who evaluates a candidate applies their own completely subjective criteria. One need only look at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards/A-Z for an outdated yet illustrative example.
It is this lack of set standards which is the RfA process’ both primary strength and significant weakness.
A strength because it perfectly facilitates the consensus-based model of governance employed by Wikipedia. The lack of a set guideline allows each candidate to be carefully evaluated on a case-by-case basis. It also allows the standards to creep higher over time as the overall number of users and their activity level increases, thus insuring the project maintains a high caliber of candidates and resulting administrators.
However, as a significant weakness it also makes it difficult to determine which candidacies will achieve a consensus to pass. This uncertainty causes otherwise solid candidates to avoid the process for lack of confidence in the result. And, occasionally, it generates inconsistent outcomes, which causes confusion and, in all likelihood, at least some lost valuable contributors. It also makes a question like “Why should you not be an administrator?” difficult to answer definitively.
All I can say with any certainty is that I meet my own criteria for adminship (which are actually quite high), and those of my nominator and the editors who have so far expressed “Support” opinions below. I cannot say if I meet your standards, for I know not what they are.
I promise I am not trying to dodge your question. If you have a specific criterion in mind, I would be more than happy to apply it against my own contributions and give you an honest opinion as to whether I believe I meet it or not. Thank you. -- Satori Son 00:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not the kind of answer I was expecting, but a good answer none the less, lets play the devil's advocate, if you had to oppose this RfA, on what grounds would you do it? βcommand 07:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Think that was answered quite eloquently above, All I can say with any certainty is that I meet my own criteria for adminship.... I've never seen an RfA that had to be opposed, just whether or not it met each individuals criteria for adminship. If you wish to know if he thinks there's area in which he can improve then by all means ask that, but I think its disingenuous to ask an editor for an argument to oppose his own RfA. Khukri 08:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Betacommand, I hope you can see Khukri’s point that a more specific question might enable me to give you the answer you are looking for. As I said, I meet my own standards for adminship, and while I realize that is likely unhelpful in your attempt to assess my candidacy, it also makes it difficult for me to reasonably speculate what someone else’s “Oppose” opinion might be.
Again, I am not trying avoid your question or be coy. If you are looking for areas where I have less experience, those would probably be WP:FACR and WP:DR. Hope this helps your evaluation. -- Satori Son 18:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Satori Son before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

That is to say, he looks like he knows what to do with sysop abilities and he seems pretty friendly and easygoing. (Is this the right place to put this?) Backsigns 18:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should put it under the Support heading below. (e.g. Suppport - I like this guy. That is to say, he looks like he knows what to do with sysop abilities and he seems pretty friendly and easygoing. Backsigns 18:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)) --Chris  G  01:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok. I was going to put it there but then I thought maybe you had to talk about it someplace else first :) Backsigns 03:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support - I can't remember exactly what the cases were when I met this user, but my impression of him has always been good. Confident he will make a good admin. David Fuchs (talk) 19:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support You clearly know what you are doing. Your contributions are sound, and you have maintained a high volume of constructive work over a long period of time. Hiberniantears 19:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - no question in my mind that this user will use the mop for the forces of truth and light. - Philippe | Talk 19:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - This user is civil, and will be a excellent admin. --Hirohisat Kiwi 19:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. You sound familiar, and I can't think of any reason to oppose. You are very constructive, and you will make a fine admin. J-stan TalkContribs 19:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Strong Support. Has made invaluable contributions to Wikipedia. No question he will make a Great admin!--Hu12 19:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - I have seen this editor around, and I tihnk he would become an excellent administrative asset. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 20:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support - well what else....... Khukri 21:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong support for this phenomenal editor. AR Argon 21:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Good editor. Politics rule 21:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Editor understands policy and the first of the five pillars. T Rex | talk 22:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Hell yes, all the admins should be like you. If this doesn't reach WP:200, it's only because some people have real lives (there must be some) and are still on vacation — iridescent (talk to me!) 23:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Quite a familiar username... All looks well. Húsönd 23:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support I'm sure you'll do well as an admin. -Lemonflash(do something) 00:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support He edits in some of the same areas I do, and does good work wherever I've seen it. I believe he can be trusted as an admin. EdJohnston 01:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Slade (TheJoker) 02:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support, definitely. Good luck! CattleGirl talk 04:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support It is time to give him the mop. --Siva1979Talk to me 04:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Per all. Jmlk17 04:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support until someone points out a good reason why not --Benspeak 06:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. All doesn't just look well (see Husond), all is well. bibliomaniac15 Tea anyone? 15:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Looks great to me! --SQL(Query Me!) 18:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support If you can keep Club Penguin good enough, and free of fluff enough for Wikipedia, you've earned my vote. Perfect Proposal Speak out loud! 21:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support looks good. Melsaran (talk) 21:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support - No visible reason to oppose. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 21:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support - can't see why not? --Chris  G  01:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. He looks like he knows what to do with sysop abilities and he seems pretty friendly and easygoing. (Is this the right place to put this?) Backsigns 18:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Yes, I support. Experienced editor who would not abuse the tools. --Hdt83 Chat 03:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support, excellent editor + asset to the project. Deiz talk 07:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 10:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Good Editor with nearly 10000 edits,civil no concerns here.Harlowraman 13:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Satori Son has been a valuable contributor for some time. The admin tools will be in good hands and enhance the project. ✤ JonHarder talk 18:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Good contributor; would make a fine admin. -- Chris B • talk • contribs 18:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support very good contribution, I hope you become a good admin too. Carlosguitar 18:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Strong candidate here. ~ Riana ⁂ 03:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support - a very fine candidate indeed! The Kate's Tool result is very impressive. :-) Lradrama 08:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support - Has great experience, lots of edits, and without out a doubt he knows what he is doing. I'm very happy with his answers to the questions, which makes me 100% confident that this user will make a great administrator. --bobsmith319 13:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Strong Support - Even tempered and diligent. Has done a lot to help slow the flood of spam we get. --A. B. (talk) 13:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support - excellent candidate. Addhoc 14:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support- Y not? --Boricuaeddie 17:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support You didn't have to wait this long. Best, --Shirahadasha 18:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. ~ Wikihermit 19:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support per Bobsmith. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 22:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support as he appears to know his stuff, especially with good evidence such as User:Satori_Son/Verify#Examples. Wow, give the guy the mop ASAP! Bearian 00:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support In all the time I have spent lurking around the RfA page, I have never seen such comprehensive, thorough, and knowledgeable answers to the questions posed here. You are a remarkable editor and my only regret is that you didn't have the ability to contribute in an administrative capacity sooner. Your contributions as a sysop will likely be some of the most valued here at Wikipedia, and I have no doubt you will go above and beyond the expectations of an administrator. I cannot wait to see you with the tools. Best wishes for success, Arky ¡Hablar! 02:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support has good experience and will be good with the tools. Carlossuarez46 21:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support Per all. Lookin' great. Yamakiri 22:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support: Easy one. Thought he already was one, etc., etc. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild 06:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. I'd support all Satori family members! Good contributor and i see no reason to be "neutral". -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 15:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. Excellent candidate for the admin bit. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support I thought he was already an admin. In any case, no qualms whatsoever, will make a great admin. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Full Support sorry for being difficult with my question, I was looking at how you answered not necessarily what you said. as admins often get into hard places. βcommand 01:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support. Reliable AIV reporter. Everything else looks fine too. WjBscribe 06:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Strong Support - The only reason I didn't think Satori Son was already an admin is because I've blocked some of the vandals he reports to AIV. I can't think of any invalid reports from him and I trust his judgement with the delete function. This RfA should have happened a long time ago. James086Talk | Email 14:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support - fine candidate indeed. Great answers to the questions. Lovely to see someone else interested in WP:DRV/CR, too. Will make a fine admin - Alison ☺ 16:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support Good answers to questions. Can use the tools. Flyguy649 talk contribs 16:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support. ♫ Cricket02 17:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support No oppose yet (the candidate must be good), so I support. ♠TomasBat 20:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support no issues. Acalamari 20:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support Pleasant editor. Xiner (talk) 22:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

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