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

lustiger_seth[edit]

Final (151/46/9); Originally scheduled to end 22:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC). Nomination successful. --Deskana (talk) 22:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user came to us asking to trust him with adminship, and it is the opinion of many of the community that adminship continues to be no big deal. This user is trusted on dewiki, having passed the adminship nomination process there; dewiki is by no means a small wiki and I would say that any administrator on that site should be trusted without reservation on enwiki too. It is also clear that a large amount of the people here trust this user. In addition to this, a sizable minority of opposes have no relevance to the question of whether we can trust this user with the tool, because they mainly focus on the number of edits/activity of this user on enwiki. I ask people to remember edit count does not matter. The difference between this user and the others who normally nominate themselves with this number of edits is that those users have not normally demonstrated that they can be trusted as lustiger_seth. The primary question we should ask ourselves when someone is nominated for adminship is "Can we trust this user with the tools?", and I believe this RFA shows a general consensus that we can. As such, I unreservedly close this RFA as successful. --Deskana (talk) 22:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

lustiger_seth (talk · contribs) – Hi! I'm admin at de-wiki and temp admin at meta-wiki. At meta-wiki and at my home wiki I help to take care of the SBLs (spam blacklists). Apart from that I have a toolserver account and developed a tool to ease searching the SBL logfiles. However, at my home wiki I do all the normal admin's stuff, too. The reason I want to get the extended rights in en-wiki is to improve your WP:SBL like I did at de-wiki and meta. Some more details you can get at WP:SBL#wrong_syntax_and_useless_escaping.
Although I have an account here since 2004 (Before SUL came I was user:wiki_seth) I have a very, very small edit count here in en-wiki (<60), but I won't use the rights to do anything, which that has nothing to do with the SBL. -- seth (talk) 22:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)corrected, see dissenting vote #21. -- seth (talk) 19:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Balloonman asked me to go more into detail:
I would like to have writing access to

because I want to

The length of the SBL increases day by day, and the bigger it is, the longer it takes everybody to edit any page (when placing a link), because everytime someone places a link, the spam blacklist extension will be run and parsing the SBL. Using some regexp tricks to compress the SBL gives a little speed-up. I am able to do some of those optimizations, and I did that at meta and de-wiki already.
Additional to that for human beings it is not easy to search the logfiles for blocking/whitelisting reasons. I wrote a tool for that, and so it would be great, if I could edit the logs, in case somebody made wrong entries. (Otherwise I would have to write many work-arounds for my log-searching tool, because of bugs, which actually belong to the log.) -- seth (talk) 00:26, 18 December 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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: WP:SBL only.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: WP:SBL will be the best contribs. ;-) My contribs will increase the performance of the SBL a bit.
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: No edits -> No stress. :-)
ROTFLOL you may be the only non-snow RFA to get away with saying that. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from NuclearWarfare
4. To alleviate some of the concerns of the opposing voters, will you agree to submit a reconfirmation RfA if you wish to move to other admin areas? (Enforced by desysopping if you don't comply?)
A. Yes, of course. Apart from that we could limit the adminship to 3 months, if you like. After that time I would ask some bureaucrat to de-admin me (and perhaps start a new RfA).
Don't you mean a meta steward? Caulde 18:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, yes I meant stewards. I could ask DerHexer, Thogo or Spacebirdy for example. -- seth (talk) 18:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good, Es ist unumgänglich, dass Sie das verstehen. Caulde 18:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Ameliorate!
5. Since a steward has told you they can not remove adminship without permission and that our recall process is completely toothless, would you consent to the condition that any administrator can indefinitely block you if you make any adminstrative action (regardless of what that action is) outside of the spamblacklist?
A. Yes, that's ok for me. -- seth (talk) 02:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question from Jehochman
6. Do you agree that granting you +sysop here is hack when there is probably a more elegant solution to the problem? Instead, could the spamblacklist be maintained at a central place where sysops from various wikis could be authorized to edit?
A: First question: At present I don't see a better solution than becoming an admin. If I had to ask other admins to do the work each time, that would double the work, and it would slow down the whole thing. Temp adminships like at meta-wiki would be a better solution than a permanent adminship, because it is so complicated to -sysop someone. In this sense you may call this RfA a hack. But there is no temp adminship here, so you need not call it like this.
Second question: That's an interesting idea. But it would need probably a year to build something like that, because there are several topics to be discussed about. For example there should be some common rules (even concerning only SBLs, en-wiki and de-wiki differ in some parts). In short: It would be nice, if all meta-admins, who take care of the meta-SBL, had the possibility to edit all local SBLs. This would be manageable, because there are just a few of them. But it would be almost uncontrollable if all local admins had the rights to edit all local SBLs. -- seth (talk) 17:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


General comments[edit]

RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion[edit]

Please see this which will show it's the same user. --Kanonkas :  Talk  23:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I went into detail. If you need more information, please ask. -- seth (talk) 00:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have enough information to support or oppose yet, but I don't think we should accept someone based solely on their work on other wikis without looking at their history on the other wikis. My German isn't great, but here's my translation of the opposing comments from his RfA at http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adminkandidaturen/Lustiger_seth:

Thanks ... well, I'd appreciate it if you'd fix anything I missed above :) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
oh, the translation had a few bad mistakes. "vorschlagender" does not mean "candidate" but "nominator". Scooter and some other guys did not like my nominator :de:user:P._Birken, who is btw. assessor of the executive committee of Wikimedia Deutschland e. V..
The edit-wars, which are mentioned in comment #32 are concerning a vandal (with many names, admins in de-wiki mostly call him "evakuierungs-troll") who is disturbing de-wiki for more than one year. I made a "small" logfile of wrong or senseless spelling and grammar edits this guy did: de:user talk:Lustiger_seth#liste (of course it is written in german). The "fighting" against that vandal was on of the secondary reasons for my german RfA. user #32 did take issue with the way I coped with that vandal.
All in all I don't think that that 7 months old RfA can be of a great use now. If you disagree in that, there should be a translation of the supporting votes, too. -- seth (talk) 02:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection if you want to translate the supporting votes; it would probably be a good idea. The "burden of proof" at RfA on this wiki is on you (and to some extent on your supporters) to present reasons to make you an admin, reasons that we can understand and verify. Most of us don't read German. Recommendations from more people who know your work on de.wp would have been nice, too. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I tried to translate the supporters, too. The result can be watched here. But I better ask some users to check my translation. -- seth (talk) 14:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As the author of the #-10-objection (see above) in German Wikipedia, I confirm that the candidate's work has been a positive surprise to me since he got elected. And AFAICS the translation of comments is correct, too. --Wahrerwattwurm (talk) 15:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC) (sysop in de:wp)[reply]
Good stuff. I've added a babelfish translation of the contribution areas for those of us (i.e. me!) who are inept at second languages. Pedro :  Chat  23:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not to be bitey, but I don't understand the purpose of summarizing the RfA in this format. As in other RfAs, the merits of each individual reply can stand on their own. Can't they? Townlake (talk) 21:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I considered not posting this information. This RFA is unique and the reasons for and against are particularly unique. I left it as a collapsed table so those who didn't want spoilers could avoid them, assuming their browser supported collapsed tables. By the way, the exercise of putting this together was useful to me in deciding if I should change my !vote. It swayed me a little but not enough to change it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was planning to do that anyway. -- seth (talk) 10:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, perfect, thanks. – RyanCross (talk) 04:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


As long as this question is not addressed, many of the oppose votes are moot. Jasy jatere (talk) 16:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the thing is that historically, the Wikipedia community does not grant adminship based on promises. The community grants adminship based on thorough vetting of the candidate. Tan | 39 16:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
in the areas for which they claim admin rights. To my knowledge, most of the admins have not had 'thorough vetting' wrt SBL. This has been waived most of the time, because most adims are believed that they will not interfere there. I find it only fair to waive the thourough vetting requirement for other areas as well, if the admin argues convincingly that he will not be busy in those areas. Jasy jatere (talk) 20:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The answer to the question Has anyone of them ever opposed an RFA because the candidate was not familiar with SBL? is no. But many RfA participants will be happy to know that there's a new reason to oppose candidates! This is almost a case of WP:BEANS. :-) Pascal.Tesson (talk) 23:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "incredibly dumb" and similar comments directed at the opposition: we're at 76%, and the odds that we'll drop below the discretionary 70% in less than two days are tiny. The claim that the opposition is hurting Wikipedia by discarding a good candidate can't be right; if it's that obvious, the bureaucrats will be on your side. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 02:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ADMIN: "Before requesting or accepting a nomination, consider if you feel that are you an editor who has been an active and regular Wikipedia contributor for at least a few months, and who is familiar with Wikipedia, and respects Wikipedia policy, and who has gained the general trust of the community." Seth is 0 for 4, thus I Oppose.--Koji† 19:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship.2Flustiger_seth — Aitias // discussion 21:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support[edit]
  1. What an odd request. I will however support based on good contributions in your home wiki which you can hopefully take here. Garden. 23:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Unrestricted, and not any other kind of support, moral or otherwise Interesting request, and I see no reason not to trust him. - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 23:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Assuming good faith here since I have no idea who you are, or what you do, but hey. An admin on two other projects, no reason to see why you can't do well here too. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 23:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Tentative support, pending confirmation that he is not insane on de.wiki or meta. I'm tentatively supporting, rather than waiting, because I have a bad feeling about how this is going to go down, and I want to do what I can to slow it down. Assuming everything is in order at de. and meta., why not trust a long-term supporter of the overall project in his attempt to improve our corner of it? I would oppose a request to be a full-fledged admin here, as our culture is likely significantly different. But I see no reason not to trust his promise to stay in the SBL and help us there. --barneca (talk) 23:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As Majorly is vouching for his work at Meta, I'll remove the "tentative" part. --barneca (talk) 00:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support: Above link confirms identity on de-wiki/meta. Unless there is some dark secret at .de or meta, +sysop flags on two major projects demonstrates all of the trust I need. Welcome aboard. Lazulilasher (talk) 00:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Addendum: we need more emphasis placed on eradicating spam from the project. His application indicates a strong desire to complete these tasks; and, others have testified to his activities on our sister projects. This additional information, in conjunction with what I've written above, moves me to Strongly support. Lazulilasher (talk) 00:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support: I would be quite happy to endorse this request. Nick (talk) 00:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Seth is extremely helpful on Meta-wiki, where he spends most of his time dealing with the global spam blacklist. If he is trusted to block a site globally, he should be trusted to do so here. Nobody should care about how many edits he's made, it whether he'll do a good job. Majorly talk 00:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Edit count doesn't matter in a situation like this. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 00:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support per Laz. //roux   00:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Per Majorly. The Helpful One 00:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Majorly usually does seem to come up with the extremely simple support argument... — Preceding unsigned comment added by R (talk • contribs)
  12. Support Per Majorly Jake Wartenbergtalk 00:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. One could make the argument that a general lack of edits would be a killer at RfA unless under exceptional circumstances. This candidate is requesting adminship under exceptional circumstances. The candidate clearly has experience with Wikipedia - admin over at another Wiki and meta - and intends only to help with the spam blacklist and not bother with anything else - which alleviates any concern regarding whether or not process is different in other Wiki's, and if this candidate would potentially misuse the mop here on that basis. Opposing this candidate for a relative detail such as edit count seems somewhat pedantic (this is in no way any disrespect to those opposing, whose opinions are valid and, indeed, raises points about a very geniune concern - however, as I see it, edit count is a redundant measure of this particular candidate, who is clearly experienced). Master&Expert (Talk) 01:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. If he's trusted to blacklist on a global scale, he's definitely trusted to blacklist here on the English Wikipedia. DiverseMentality 01:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support per Majorly.--chaser - t 01:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Reasonable request, trusted user on de-wiki, I think I understand the need. Townlake (talk) 01:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Fear not specialists! Your request to monitor WB:SPL is reasonable, and WP will be better for your work. While 50 edits is pretty weird, I think we should be looking at de and meta for his work. FlyingToaster 01:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support - Allow me to break this down - having +sysop on two projects gives you trust. Maintenance work does not require a ton of policy knowledge - and it is likely that very little in the sort of maintenance he wants to do differs in execution from de. I trust him to do as his nomination says and not use the rights for anything other than maintaining the SBL. Whilst I do trust the user, since other decisions would require much more policy knowledge than it does to maintain the SBL I would ask that his statement of "[not] do[ing] anything, which has nothing to do with the SBL" is enforced. To close - absolutely yes. No reason not to trust user. — neuro(talk) 01:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support He's stated his scope, and will be useful in the rather underwatched area he has chosen to work in. His contribs on other wikis are solid and demonstrate trustworthiness. Orderinchaos 01:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. As I see it, Iustiger has shown himself to be a trustworthy admin at both meta and de:. He's asking for the tools so he can work in a very specialised area that isn't really being covered on en; I firmly believe that we should make exceptions in cases where there is a clear benefit to the project. I am more than happy to accept his work at de: and meta as evidence of his trustworthiness and ability in his area of work. Rje (talk) 01:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Per Majorly and the notion that specialization is not just for ants. ++Lar: t/c 02:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support User definitely deserves access. Looks like he would be a big help to the project, and absolutely no reason to believe he would abuse. – Alex43223 T | C | E 02:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - specialized area + admin on two other projects. Trustworthy. VX!~~~ 02:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC) Abstaining, I need time to think about this. Neutral until then[reply]
  23. Support Specialized admin, net benefit to the project. I see no reason to treat this request as suspect. The kind of abuse that would come from a request like this would be remedied swiftly (rather than the kind of abuse we worry about in administrators generally). What's he going to do, delete the main page? Protonk (talk) 02:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Sure. Clear outline of what good he'll do for wikipedia, sans admin drama. Ideal candidate, IMO. Wish there were more of him. The alternative is to require this already trusted Wiki-editor to perform some silly, perfunctory "chores", get involved in admin areas and basically waste his and everyone else's time. No thanks. I trust that he'll do what he says he'll do. Keeper ǀ 76 02:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Epbr123 (talk) 02:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support: This editor is asking for permission to contribute to one particular area of our project, and I don't see why not; he's an active admin at two different projects already. However, I do wish that the editor would promise to limit his admin-actions to areas pertaining to WP:SBL. Otherwise, full support. -- Nomader (Talk) 04:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Samir 04:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Why not, after all adminship shouldn't be a big deal, decision can always be reversed if there are problems. Guest9999 (talk) 04:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. weak support The lack of experience on this project is a slight concern. However, he is an admin on .de so we can trust him. And he intends to use the tools in a very narrow fashion. Overall I think that letting him have the tools will be a net benefit. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support per majorly and Barneca as a net positive, despite the low count on this Wikipedia, with the proviso that I can accept on WP:AGF that candidate will limit himself to SBL only-- an area I never heard of before. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 05:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear crat-- after reviewing this discussion, I have changed to Strongest possible support. Dlohcierekim 16:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the most specialized version of the specialist admin concept we are likely to see. One who concentrates on WP:CSD need not have experience with page protection or voluminous AN/I posts to do well deleting those articles, for instance. A vandal fighter need not be an article builder. It is detrimental to the project to deny candidates the tools for areas of interest because they lack experience in areas of no interest. The oppose arguments, IMO, simply do not apply in this instance. Dlohcierekim 17:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with you on CSD/vandal fighters. I think it is imperative that they have experience in article building. They are the ones who can do the most damage to the project---moreso than the vandals they are fighting. They need to understand what they are doing, and without article building, they cannot fully understand what it is that they might be tagging.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 17:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support I take as truthful the candidate's representation that he will use the tools only relative to WP:SBL, and I suggest to those opposing that I cannot imagine that any of those supporting here would be unwilling to act swiftly to request that the candidate be desysopped were he to exceed his limited mandate or were he, because of unfamiliarity with en.wp (I don't really know that any exists, but some are concerned, and probably not unreasonably so), to disrupt the project in his use of the tools; the ArbCom, to be sure, would undoubtedly (and with celerity) direct a steward to remove the sysop flag were the community to draw its attention to the candidate's contravening the commitment he makes here (that's not, I should note, to suggest that it is the ArbCom to whom the community should have to turn to pursue de-adminship—the present scheme improperly aggrandizes the role of the committee and unforgivably relieves the community of a right that rightly resides with it; I speak only to the process that would transpire here). Joe 06:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I should say that I would not support a bureaucrat's promoting the candidate in the absence of a consensus here (perhaps my nettlesome pessimism once more rears its head, but I suspect that it will be suggested, as it has been in certain other cases in which a consensus for promotion was not reached in RfAs that were pursued for technical reasons, in which much of the opposition was regarded by some as fundamentally misguided and small-minded, that the candidate be promoted notwithstanding the community's having failed to accede to the request). Joe 06:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Weak Support - admin on another Wiki (so I somehow doubt that he will be deleting the main page), he will be a net positive and the edit count is not a major factor to me because I'm going to AGF his claim that he will stick to WP:SBL. Though the edit count scares me a little bit, he is a sysop on the German Wikipedia, so he's has to have done some good work there...maybe that can be translated to here (going back to my "net positive" thought). Allanon ♠The Dark Druid♠ 06:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. Adminship on de.wiki is very hard to come by, the simple fact that this editor has adminship there assuages any concerns I might have. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 06:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. Goals and needs of admin tools are so refreshingly straightforward, it's very to !vote any other way. -Seidenstud (talk) 07:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support All the evidence clearly suggests the candidate is knowledgeable and trustworthy. Steven Walling (talk) 08:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support: Trust the user to do the job intended. I see no reason to 'make' the user do some AIV of AfD or article building just to boost an edit count and get ready for another RfA. This candidate is an exception to many rules, and I support. I wish there were more cross-wiki candidates like this one. Law shoot! 08:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Makes sense to me. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Per Majorly's argument, and WP:DEAL - although I look forward to the answer to the well phrased Q4.Excellent answer to Q4 - although possibly unenforceable I have no reason to doubt Seth's word on this. Far more potential benefit than risk. Pedro :  Chat  10:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Per his answer to q. 4. My main concern was that adminship is granted as a package: as discussed, if we trust an editor to delete, we trust them to block and protect, etc etc. However, this is exactly the type of "specialist" candidate that is worthy of the tools. We don't do temporary adminship here, so the tools are granted indefinitely, but if you want to move into other areas, I would advise a second RfA. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 11:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support - user is demonstrably trustworthy, has done good admin work on de.wiki, and wishes to assist our overworked admins in an often-neglected area he's good at? I'm gonna call this a clear net positive. Stick to the spam blacklist work and I will have no complaints whatsoever. ~ mazca t|c 11:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support This is a rare exception. Because they're limiting themselves to certain areas he already has experience with, I doubt they will blow up the 'pedia. Xclamation point 11:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Agree with Garden (talk · contribs), Cyclonenim (talk · contribs), Barneca (talk · contribs), Lazulilasher (talk · contribs), Majorly (talk · contribs), et al. Cirt (talk) 12:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Has special purpose. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Here to do a job which badly needs doing, and which will significantly improve the project. Even he if does decide to go rouge, extremely unlikely considering he is trusted on two other projects and seems to meet most of the requirements to be a full meta-admin, any damage he could do before being caught would be outweighted by the benefit his changes would give. --Jac16888 (talk) 13:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. SPA, will only do non-controversial changes with the additional rights. Per Q4 and no problems on his talk page this is not only a net, but a full positive. --Amalthea 13:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support The candidate holds a position of trust on another Wikipedia project and I see no reasonable possibility of abuse on this one. Once trust is established, the bottom line is that the en-Wikipedia project would benefit from this user having the bit. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support I think you'll be a good admin. Elbutler (talk) 14:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. The user is volunteering to perform, a largely neglected task here, as he has done on other projects. His task will be made easier with the use of the same tools that has used elsewhere without incident. No problem supporting. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak Support, verging on neutral As the person who initially closed this per not now, I completely understand where the Opposes are coming from. At first glance this candidate is the prototypical NOTNOW case. Less than 60 edits on the EN wiki, no way that most of us can properly vett him. BUT he is already an admin on two sister projects. If there was ever a motion to simplify the RfA process it would be to find a way to ease respected sysops from other projects. (This is not to say all sister projects as some are still in their infancy---but DE and META would be two projects where I am willing to accept their opinion.) So, while the Opposes make perfect sense to me, and I started out there, I think I am ultimately swayed to say, this is an exception and to IAR.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 14:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)EDIT: The more I think about this, the more I am convinced its the right thing to do.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 15:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)EDIT: Moving to neutral for now. see reasoning below.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 23:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support I think we need to stop viewing the admin process as some sort of bizarre "good citizen" award and view it more practically. The candidate is credible and wishes to improve a highly technical aspect of wikipedia, he has a reasonably detailed description of the work he wishes to undertake, and it is good work. Ray (talk) 14:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hear hear. Dlohcierekim 14:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Bingo. Seth has volunteered to do a job which, to be honest, I have no interest in doing. I do, however, recognize that this job must be done. I am quite happy to welcome him to our project and am more than willing to provide him with the tools he requires. Lazulilasher (talk) 15:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I added something to the blacklist on meta, after someone asked me privately. I formatted it wrongly, and there were problems. I of course reverted my addition straightaway and I've not added anything since, I don't think. It goes to show it's a very dull, difficult and often awkward job to do. Anyone who works on the spam blacklist regularly has my respect. Majorly talk 15:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Strong Support. Opposes points are unconvincing. While de-wiki has different policies to us I trust an admin on that project to be mature enough to look ours up before doing anything controversial (not that updating the spam watchlist is too difficult and iffy). In addition he has few edits on en-wiki, yes, but de-wiki actually has (in some ways) stricter standards; it'd be like (iffy example I know) preventing someone using a pistol because "they've only got experience with rifles". Ironholds (talk) 15:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Strong Support is clearly a useful member of the global Wiki community and there is no reason to expect he will go rogue on us GTD 15:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support; no trust issues, and a reasonable request for access to the tools in a manner which will benifit enwp. — Coren (talk) 15:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Mainly per Majorly, but also on the proviso that you agree to register yourself here if given the mop. ϢereSpielChequers 15:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support this entirely reasonable request. Crystal whacker (talk) 16:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Strong support - "if he can be trusted to block sites globally on meta, what's the problem here?" - wise words. Viel Glück! ;) --Cameron* 16:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support - Though edit count is low here, no lower than mine on our sister project, however he has well over 10,000 edits, as shown here [1] and is a administrator on our German site - No history of incivility there or here - been an active member for over 5 years. I say let the tools carry over. Viel Glueck. ShoesssS Talk 16:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support The opposes are mind-numbingly short-sighted. Trusted user, no reason to think that he won't abide by his promise to work solely on SBL. It's also pretty clear that lustiger_seth would get hammered and desysoped if he uses admin powers on matters unrelated to SBL. Experience on the en.wiki is irrelevant if he sticks to spam control which really needs to be a cross-wiki process in order to be effective. I just can't believe people are citing WP:NOTNOW as if it's relevant to this particular case. I'm tempted to create a new shortcut WP:DONTREPLACERATIONALTHOUGHTBYANALLCAPSSHORTCUT. Most depressing is the argument "many good RfA candidates fail on flimsy grounds so it's only fair that we fail this one". Pascal.Tesson (talk) 16:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Statements such as Joe's and Pascal's that claim that he would get desysopped if he used admin powers on matters unrelated to SBL are not well founded. There is no way he would get desysopped unless he did something that any other admin would get desysopped for. Like it or not, adminship is an all-or-nothing kind of deal, and all admins on this wiki should have an appropriate level of experience on this wiki. Mike R (talk) 16:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I beg to differ. This is an unusual request for adminship and all supporters of this RfA understand this, as does lusiger seth. I'd be the first one to send the issue to ArbCom at the first sign of trouble. There's a clear and unambiguous pledge to a limited use of the tools. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 16:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As a critic of our being without a reasonable mechanism to remove the bit from an admin in whom the community, for whatever reason, no longer wish to repose trust and of the ArbCom's being willing to substitute its judgment from that of the community, especially relative to potential desysoppings, I can't say that I didn't at the outset have the reservations you do, and I can't fairly call them unfounded; I'm convinced, though, that in this unique case we have, per Pascal, nothing about which to worry, if only because I am sure that the ArbCom recognize that were they to fail to act upon Seth's acting contrary to his explicit commitment to "use the rights to do [nothing] that has nothing to do with the SBL" (and, once more, I have no reason at all to distrust Seth; we speak only of worst-case hypothetical here), things would fall apart (of course, Bstone, Kurt, and [to a lesser extent] I might not mind that...). I am not so devoid of trust in our system and hope for the structural future of our project that I must allow skepticism to control here, but I cannot, in the end, fault you for concluding otherwise. Joe 21:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. support sure why not. He does not have a ton of article work in de but he seems trustworthy. GtstrickyTalk or C 16:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support - Per Majorly. Wisdom89 (T / C) 16:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. I doubt he'd cause any problems. Sane, and his history suggests he wouldn't suddenly start getting involved in drama here. Trusted and everything. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 16:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support a trusted user with good track record on dewiki and meta. --Aude (talk) 16:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. This is one of those times when I truly regret knowing only one language. However, a little digging shows me an editor with over 10,000 edits in his home wiki, 7 months as an administrator after an apparently drama-free RfA, support in that RfA from a commons administrator and member of our own community (whose opinion I've solicited), an expressed intention to limit activities and length of service...and on top of that, the work stands a chance of making our pages load a little faster? Everything seems to be in order to support this request. And let's not forget, we do still have stewards, at least one of whom has supported this request by my reckoning. Yes, it's unusual. No, that doesn't mean it's unreasonable.  Frank  |  talk  17:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Weak, very very weak Support Normally I belive you simply cannot become a sysop just having 50 edits, but in this case I believe it's exemptions-time 'cause I trust him in wikimedia-releated issues, because he promised not to use the tools outside the spam-blacklist and because he's a "good guy" ;) abf /talk to me/ 17:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. On balance, based on the good references supplied above and his answers to questions 1 and 4 which I would be very disappointed if he does not stick to. This should not set any precedent however. Davewild (talk) 17:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! (On the basis he will work in a manner similiar to stewards' policy) - 18:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
  66. Support but for edits to SBL only. Any other use of the tools will require a reconfirmation RFA.-gadfium 18:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. 'Support under the conditions proposed by the requester. The overall goal of RFA is to ensure we have trustworthy people doing Good Stuff to the encyclopedia, stuff that needs a certain recognized level of trust to do. Seth is proposing something very targeted, where it seems his limited participation in the en:wiki community will not be problematic. He has earned trust elsewhere and shown himself to be a good communicator in this request. Some opposers have expressed surprise that there are many people who support his candidature but oppose much more active en:wiki participants in RfA on the basis of single diffs, etc. We can debate till the cows come home how well our RfA process works in general, but one reason for this is that we in general are selecting people who seek to play a broad general admin role at en:wiki, where their overall collaborative interactions skills, skills in dealing with editorial conflict, and familiarity with a wide range of policies are all important. That is not the case in a specialized request like this one. Martinp (talk) 19:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support per Majorly, and per the German Wikipedians. He seems to have been a good admin over there, and if you look at the translations of the opposers, they have no reason except for editcountitis (to an even more shameless extent than we typically see here on en.wp, no less). rspεεr (talk) 19:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support - self-noms (and de.wp) FTW! :D   jj137 (talk) 20:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support - If he does anything wrong or does anything outside of his area of interest the tools can be taken away. I trust the guy anyway, he want to help and needs the tools to do a job others won't. — Realist2 20:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Actually has a good reason for being an admin. THE GROOVE 21:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. He has already shown that he can be trusted with admin access to meta spam blacklist. No real reason to deny it here. Desysop if he goes outside of SBL. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  73. I have observed many times where candidates have promised what they will/won't do if they are made an administrator, but have been opposed on the basis that they "have no reason to stick to their promises/there's no way of enforcing the promises" if sysopped. With Lustiger seth, I believe this situation is different: he only wants to edit one part of the encyclopedia, the spam blacklist; therefore, keeping an eye on what he does will be easy, and should he venture outside the realms of SBL and thereby break his promise, speedy desysopping should be no trouble at all. However, I have no objection to a second RfA at a later date should Lustiger seth gain more experience here, and wants permission to use other parts of adminship. Besides, if Lustiger seth is granted adminship for SBL use only, I'm not worried about him causing negative issues...I'm more concerned about the admin accounts that have been inactive for years, and what possible problems they might cause should they end up applying the adminship of three-plus years ago to today. I am happy to support Lustiger seth's request for this type of adminship. Acalamari 22:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support - I don't see that there is any great philosophical difference between the German and English wikipedias. This candidate is entirely trustworthy. - Richard Cavell (talk) 23:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support, per good contributions on their home wiki, and because of the specialised technical skills that he can bring to us here on enwiki. No evidence this user would abuse the tools. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  76. Support - Obviously a net benefit on other projects and knows what he's doing. Mr.Z-man 23:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support - Based on his answer to question 4, I think we can trust him with the mop, given that he's only going to be using it for a specialized area of the project. If we vetted him like we did other admin candidates, we'd be expecting FA's, thousands of edits, and so on, to allow him to work on a specialized area of the 'pedia. While this may make sense for candidates who will be dealing with users on a regular basis, I think he has demonstrated trust of other users on meta and de, and as such, will stay true to his word and work only on the area's he's noted above. Fraud talk to me 00:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support - He has said that he will only use the tools for a particular purpose. If he ends up using them for other things in a good way, so much the better. If he ends up misusing them, we enforce the rules as we would with any other administrator.--Danaman5 (talk) 00:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support - See no reason why not, the user has demonstrated himself trustworthy on other wikis. Anything that helps for cross project collaboration is a good thing. —Nn123645 (talk) 03:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support The user seems trustworthy and he is doing a good job on other sites. I see no reason not to give it to him. --Patrick (talk) 04:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support - There's nothing to support the claims that he'd misuse the tools. He's trusted on another large wiki and has said what he's going to do with them - that's good enough for me. Matt (Talk) 04:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Weak Support. I see no reason to suppose that an admin on the German wikipedia would suddenly go mad on the English wikipedia. I would have strongly supported had there been an effective desysopping process on the English wikipedia, but there isn't. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support. Candidates who come forward with very explicit and limited aims generally stick to them, per examples listed above. Should this candidate stray much from his intended remit, I suspect things will be addressed fairly promptly. Meanwhile, the task he wishes to work on is one of the most complex ones on Wikipedia due to its interrelationship with other projects, and he is already a proven quantity in this area. Risker (talk) 06:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support This is indeed a strange request, but fortunately we have a rule for dealing for these kinds of situations. I this request has been made in good faith by a de user in good standing and because of this, I think this user will be a net positive to the project. Foxy Loxy Pounce! 07:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support – What a specialized and specific request indeed... but after doing some thought and research into this nomination, I have decided to support Seth. In question 1, Seth said he would only work at WP:SBL-related issues. With only about 50 edits, I doubt he knows Wikipedia policy as well as a normal Wikipedia editor, BUT if he promises to only work on the spam blacklist, then I think I can make an exception to support Seth to become an administrator. I've looked over his contributions at Meta-Wiki ([2]) and de.wikipedia ([3]) and he shows he has quite a lot of experience of the spam blacklist to help en.wikipedia's blacklist also. So he has no real contributions to our project... woo... big deal... but if his only admin work he intends to do is spam blacklist work, then I believe adminship can be done here. Other RfA candidates generally plan on doing deletion, protection and blocking work... that, you really need to know Wikipedia policies for. Spam blacklist? Nothing really except to know what to do. Seth obviously knows what to do, so there's nothing really problematic with him as an administrator here. If this RfA passes, I expect that he will NOT do any deletion, protection, blocking, or any other admin-task for any reason at all. The only admin-task he should do is for spam blacklist. If he promises that, then I can trust Seth as an administrator... simply for access to the blacklist... nothing else. I can understand why most users would oppose, but assume good faith that he really and simply just wants access to the spam blacklist and ignore all rules (ahem... WP:NOTNOW? (I know it's just an essay for advice... but still, ignore it in this kind of request and situation)) so that our blacklist could be improved with the help from Seth. Thank you, Seth, for offering to do extra work just for the sake of Wikipedia's blacklist. – RyanCross (talk) 07:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Best reasoning I've seen on this page, by far. This probably counteracts 75% of the "reasons" in the Oppose section.   jj137 (talk) 23:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support based on candidate's affirmative reply to Nuclear Warfare's question No. 4 above, to be strictly enforced.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 08:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support per Majorly. I've given this quite a bit of thought, and I think it comes down to one thing: can we trust this user? I most certainly do. faithless (speak) 08:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support – so long as the candidate is aware he will lose the bit if he uses the tools outside WP:SBL, I have no qualms supporting. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 08:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support per Majorly. I have no problem with specialist admins and Seth's work on other Wikis in the project gives me great confidence in his ability to do good here too. Nancy talk 08:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support per WP:AGF, WP:NOBIGDEAL, WP:WTHN, and any other acronyms you can think of. Seth appears to be the definitive example of why adminship shouldn't be limited by editcount: he wants to perform a useful task that he needs the tools for, and his work on other wikis gives us reason to trust him, so why should we oppose just because he hasn't done much here? The sysop bit can always be removed if he screws up or breaks his word, anyway. I have confidence in this user. Terraxos (talk) 11:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support There is just no reason not to support this candidate. There has been an absolute absence of anything negative about this candidate that I see. Nothing. The best we have from opposers are indirect, maybe possibly not a good idea, haven't done it before kind of arguments. This is a highly specialized position and the nom already does admin work that affects en at meta. JodyB talk 12:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support I have confidence that he will not go beyond what he is intending to do, at least not until he becomes familiar with the practices here and the differences between some of the guidelines on the en and de Wikipedias. Actually, the spam backlog should keep him busy enough that he won't even have time to think about doing it. I am normally very reluctant to have confidence in admin candidates with very low edit count who intend to work in specific areas only, but this is an exception. DGG (talk) 15:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support due to no memorable negative interactions and as candidate has never been blocked; however, I wish the candidate's userpage had more to it, such as barnstars or good or featured credits. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 16:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support He has enough experience for the work he will be doing. Interference with other issues in en-wp is extremely unlikely. And it is good to have a specialist admin instead of another generalist, who does the usual vandal-fighting stuff. Jasy jatere (talk) 16:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  95. On the strict understanding that the tools are just for the spam blacklist. Stifle (talk) 16:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  96. I used to be very active in counterspam, I've sorta died out a bit due to lack of time and programming other things. Regardless, as a past active counterspam person... I support this request as counterspam needs more people. We are overloaded with tools, and few people to use them. :) —— nixeagle 17:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Per Minderbinder. –Pomte 19:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support. Has demonstrated he can be trusted and has not been controversial. That on top of asking to have admin privileges for a limited area in which he has expertise. I'm very dismayed by the poor quality of the reasoning in many of the oppose votes. Not enough experience is clearly shown to be false. Not enough edits to en.wiki really doesn't matter that much if he has enough experience overall to demonstrate he can be trusted to do the task he is asking to do. Some of the oppose votes are reasonable and everyone is entitled to their opinion, but many of them are not realizing the value this user can bring for very little risk. There is way too much tunnel vision and too little big picture thinking going on. - Taxman Talk 19:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you here... or at least challenge it. While many of the opposes do have poor rationale, so to do many of the supports. EG the supports that go along the reasoning of, "Haven't see any evidence that we can't trust him." Of course not, we don't have any edits to make that sort of judgement on this candidate. Unless you speak Deutsch fleuntly, then you don't know his temperment or history. The challenge with this RfA isn't that we are really judging Seth, but rather our view on our sister projects and a philosophical ideal. Do we trust our sister projects to properly vett candidates during an RfA when we don't have enough evidence to make independent judgments on our own? I don't think anybody is doubting that he will be a net positive in the area where he wishes to work and that the tools are required there--- but, and there is always a but, we've routinely denied adminship to people who want to work in other niche areas because they don't know the full extent of en wikipedia. Does the mere fact that he is an admin elsewhere, allow us to overcome an issue that we wouldn't grant to a dedicated user of the En project who makes similar promises? If Seth had 5000 edits, all on the Spam list, his talk page, and related pages---all of which showed a thoughtful dedicated user, the RfA would still fail because the candidate didn't show a broader understanding of our project. This is not, in any way shape or form, and open and shut case. I think most of the supports are raising valid concerns and I think most of the opposes are raising valid concerns.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 22:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well the difference is when we have someone offering to help out in this nonprofit project and our default is to give them the admin bit since it should be no big deal that means supports are just agreeing with the nomination, etc. They don't need as compelling of reasoning. Further I would disagree that "Haven't see any evidence that we can't trust him." is poor reasoning since there is a large amount of evidence available for that. en.wiki isn't a different planet from de.wiki there are just slight differences in how things are done. Anyone that can be a trusted user on a large project like de.wiki and meta can figure out the differences between how the projects work. Finally the real problem is that even if there were equal numbers of poorly reasoned supports and opposes the opposes count for much more when you consider the generally accepted promotion thresholds. That's a problem and why I chose to point out that there were an unusual number of poorly reasoned oppose votes. You don't need to speak fluent German to get an idea of his contributions and contribution quality. You can also go on the trust that people that are fluent in German and can review his contribution place in him. That is the benefit of someone that is an admin on other projects. There does not need to be this inviolate wall between projects. - Taxman Talk 02:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support.  Sandstein  19:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support. - low risk appointment with a reasonable upside - Agathoclea (talk) 23:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Hesitant support. Unlike Agathoclea, I believe this is a high-risk appointment, but I trust that you will use your tools only for what you have said. Good luck, Malinaccier (talk) 01:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support per Malinaccier. LittleMountain5 01:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support - anti-spam is also my specialty both here & a small amount of cross-project work. I know Seth from the cross-project work & it would be nice to have his assistance here on en-wiki.. --Versageek 01:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support per common sense, a personal strong feeling this is a trustworthy individual, and per his impressive work on another project -- one which has very high standards indeed: and per Ralph Waldo Emerson. This is a delightfully instructive exception to our general tenure rule, and I have no problem supporting this candidate. Antandrus (talk) 01:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support - per answer to question 5; net positive with no risk. ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 02:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support - He needs the tools for a legit task and is a globally trusted user. No reason to not trust here. Unpopular Opinion (talk) 12:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support (Moved from strong oppose) Lazulilasher convinced me to support. Also, per Garden, this is quite the unusual candidate. However, per Malinaccier, this is a high-risk appointment. But even with under 500 edits, Seth appears to be a responsible Wikipedian, who is willing to help the community in battling one of our most annoying entities: spam. Don't forget, Seth, that as an administrator, you can go further in fighting spam – by blocking spammers. God speed, Seth, and good luck. I can now stop banging myself in the head, knowing that I can now support you on your quest to kill all spam. ;-) And another thing; Seth, do you think you could please teach me German? I had huge trouble understanding this. --Dylan620 Contribs Sign! 17:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Quick translation: "I actually wanted the username Seth but that was already taken. So now I'm Happy Seth". Lustig = Happy, cheerful, merry.    SIS  01:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, if you're going to accuse Lazulilasher of canvassing me, please don't. I read his argument for supporting Seth, and that is what drove me to support. --Dylan620 Contribs Sign! 18:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support Kristen Eriksen (talk) 19:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Per work at Meta-Wiki doing this same thing for the last year or so. Daniel (talk) 22:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support. John254 23:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Strong Support The opposes bring up some concerns, but they do start to feed off of each other. This user, IMHO, has what it takes. Best of luck. Undead Warrior (talk) 02:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Extremely strong support. I rarely find the need to oppose this candidate because he has lots of strong experience. If users oppose then they oppose for a very disrespectful reason. IMHO, MHLUtalk 04:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support - I see seth having the ability to edit the pages that he is asking to as a net positive to the project and I do not foresee that he will abuse the trust of the community by using the other tools that +sysop entails. Also because of the precendent of Herbythyme's RfA (which I also supported). -MBK004 05:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support. the wub "?!" 12:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support. Wikipedia needs more technicians. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 16:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support. The Germans know how to run a wiki. — CharlotteWebb 21:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support, but only if you'll visit de:WP:KA once :-) --Church of emacs (Talk) 22:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    boah, meine fresse, hast du mich vielleicht damit erschreckt! isch geb dir gleisch ma "oppose". wenn das absicht war, komm ich vielleicht tatsaechlich mal nach KA... um dich zum vimmen zu zwingen, haehae! aber am 8. jan. hab ich aller voraussicht nach schon wieder keine zeit nach KA zu kommen.
    Sorry, for answering in German, but my English is too dry resp. less idiomatic. Anyway I'll try to translate that: "Gosh! You frightened me by "opposing". If you did that intentionally, perhaps I'll come at some time to KA... just to force you to vim. ;-p. But next time I again won't be able to visit the KA meeting." -- seth (talk) 00:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support. "Being an administrator is no big deal" is still the party line, yes? This user can put the bit to legitimate and productive use, so let's give it to him. TotientDragooned (talk) 23:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Extremely strong support Considering the clarity of the request, and the answers to the questions, it is completely nonsensical to claim NOTNOW or "too few edits" or "not enough experience". Seth clearly knows what he is doing, knows what he will do and has shown no reason to believe that he needs anything otherwise. I'm shocked by the transparent ignorance of some of these oppose votes. --Wikiacc () 00:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support The oppose voters have thrown WP:AGF right out the window. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support I'm willing to take this candidate at his word; that he will help out initially only in his area of expertise. While many of the oppose voters make good points, there is simply a net positive potential here and the handful of spam specialized admins could use the assistance. Kuru talk 03:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support per Minderbinder and candidate commitment to only use tools for the SBL, which can use all the help in the world. Should access rights be split in the future, the tools can be adjusted accordingly. Candidate commits to making his role here explicit and well-known, no indication whatsoever they won't keep to that commitment, easily enough solved if they don't. Franamax (talk) 12:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support --User:Miacek (t) 13:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support Has already demonstrated that he can be trusted to handle the admin tools appropriately. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Unterstützung Not entirely orthodox but imho that's often the best kind of candidate. It seems pretty simple: he's extremely experienced, he certainly speaks English better than I speak German, and best of all he's here offering us his help no strings attached... to turn him away would be a net loss to the project and an incredibly dumb thing to do. l'aquatique |✡| talk 15:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support unless evidence shown otherwise that the user will abuse the tools, plain and simple. Y. Ichiro (talk) 19:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support per many above, sounds alright as adminship, especially in this case, shouldn't be a big deal. ✼ American Eagle (talk) 20:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Support, selbstverständlich - He's an admin on meta, so indirectly he's already working for en.wikipedia, isn't he? First: assume good faith, second: he's only interested in the blacklist area, third: I can't find a single reason, diff or post (not here and not on .de) to think he would abuse the tools. The German wiki has an admin-expert on blacklist maintenance and he is offering the English wiki his services. We are going to say "No"? Of course not. See it as outsourcing. And there is no reason for Seth to go through the usual .en RFA criteria. In his case they are truly irrelevant. In short: AGF, and be glad a specialist is offering his help. Besides, both .de and meta are still running smoothly so he can't be that bad. ;-)    SIS  22:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Suport assuming the response to Q5 can be enforced if necessary. I'm sympathetic to the oppose reasons, but I can also recall when developers used to go through RFA to facilitate their work. This case seems comparable to the developer-admin. Gimmetrow 23:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Support He's proposing to work in a very specific area, and I'm sure any deviations from that will be handled or reversed should they come up. Besides, the blacklist is an area where many, if not most, of us don't have the technical abilities to help the way this editor can. AniMate 03:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Support I normally steer clear of these, but I'd hate to see someone rejected just because we put English on a pedestal. Clearly a highly competent experienced Wikipedian. The fact that they have more experience in another language is an asset, not a liability. Randomran (talk) 05:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Support - if Hilary needs to climb Everest, give him the pickaxe. Sceptre (talk) 06:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Support. I don't suppose at this stage my vote will make any difference but I'll record it anyway. The issue here is trust - we have someone who has "auditioned" at a similar project and been hugely impressive. Is it really likely he would choose another wiki to run amok on, after such an enormous contribution? I thank this editor for wanting to help out in this not especially interesting area. Best wishes if this RFA is a success. Dean B (talk) 06:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  134. support. Regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 19:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Per Tan. I understand RfA a little less every single day. I'm surprised that many of the people I happen to agree with most about RfA are opposing for such idiotic reasons and then comparing them favorably to bad CSD tagging, which from what I've seen is one of the few rational opposition reasons given around here (though not always) I'm assuming that the answer can question five can be enforced, of course and I don't see why it wouldn't be. Nousernamesleft (talk) 21:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the mythical desysopping process, I'll give you the same answer Gandhi gave when asked what he thought of Western Civilization: "I think it would be a good idea". - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  136. When I reviewed Seth's de.wikipedia contributions, I found plenty of good sense and reason to trust. I understand the opposers who cannot review these contributions themselves, or find them irrelevant to en.wiki. I understand them, but I disagree, which is why I'm posting my support. I also understand the concerns regarding different wiki-cultures; my request to Seth is to ask an administrator he trusts or to post something at one of the noticeborards, when in doubt. Thanks for caring about sister projects, and good luck! ---Sluzzelin talk 00:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Support he can only help us. Artichoker[talk] 03:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Support Feel user will not misuse tools and further user plans to use it solely for SBL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Support Doesn't look like he'll vandalize the main page, block Jimbo, spam every article and blow up the servers. But I support nevertheless. :-).John Z (talk) 10:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Support Trusted member on de.wikipedia and meta.wikimedia (a big wiki and a pretty important wiki!), pleasant to work with, and I trust that he will not misuse the admin tools. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Ja. Warum nicht? --Santa (talk) 13:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Support: We are making an encyclopedia on a global scale, involving as many languages as possible. Recognizing the different standards that apply across the various Wikipedias, I consider them all rooms in the same house. Some rooms are messier than others, but it takes about five minutes of intellectual curiosity and a good online translation tool to figure out if someone like Seth is legitimate. I trust any admin on de.Wiki who can speak English to function here competently. Especially when they desire such a limited scope of work. This guy isn't going to destroy the English Wikipedia, and any reasonable person who has done even the most superficial due diligence can see that. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Support assuming he only works on SBL, and nothing else, as he said he would. Kennedy (talk) 14:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Avruch T 16:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  145. I fully respect Eco's concerns below, and partially agree with them. Under normal circumstances I also would be opposing; these are not normal circumstances. By "dedicated long-standing contributors to this project who've made thousands of edits are routinely picked apart in RfA over the most inane trivia and denied adminship" I imagine he is partially referring to myself. It can be argued that seth has not ruffled any feathers and made very few edits to this wiki. However, Wikipedia is not a one language project; de. is approaching on 1 million articles. Much of what seth does there is janitorial, however, he does aid in content more than some editors I've seen requesting adminship. He surely had negative interactions there, but he is human. Besides, Eco, the best way to counter the picking apart is supporting. :) ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 19:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Support - As long as he does what he says he will, and why should we not trust him? He's a sysop on the second largest Wikipedia, and he's open to recall or blocking if he does anything he shouldn't. He's simply going to make something more useful and efficient. Why do we need to see more edits? He's not going to make any edits to article space (most likely). Just assume good faith, as he is clearly trustworthy. DavidWS (contribs) 21:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  147. He knows what he's going to use the tools for and has proven he can do so. That's good enough for me. Wizardman 21:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Support per Wizardman. Maxim(talk) 21:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Support. Lustiger seth wants to solely edit the spam blacklist, which is fine by me. I'm sure there are more than enough admins (me included) that are willing to block as soon as he uses his tools for other purposes. I doubt that he does, tho. Anyhow: No big deal, assume good faith, yadda, yadda. --Conti|✉ 21:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Support. Trusted there, why not here? — JoJo • Talk • 22:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Support, I don't think his adminship on dewiki (and especially not the one at metawiki) is any indication that he can be trusted at all, but having researched him and read the comments here, he seems like a decent user. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 22:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. We can't guarantee you'll use it for just the spam blacklist, so oppose. Caulde 22:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per number of edits here. Though your intentions are laudable, adminship is pretty all or nothing on wikipedia. I've added WP:SBL to my watchlist though, and would ask other admins to do the same, to make any additions suggested there get added a little faster. --fvw* 23:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. There are already moral supports, so I have to oppose per WP:NOTNOW, also per lack (less than 500) contributions. ayematthew ✡ 00:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This should not be NOTNOW, based on the supports that are not moral supports. - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 00:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Possibly worded it wrong. I normally moral support candidates like seth, but in a situation where there are already a few moral supports and only one oppose, I felt the need to oppose. ayematthew ✡ 00:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As well, for the record: my support is unrestricted. I support the candidate without reservation (i.e.: I am not morally supporting). Candidate has trust of 2 of the largest projects; I applaud his desire to go through RfA rather than take another route. I understand your desire for oppose; I merely wanted to clarify my support. Lazulilasher (talk) 00:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong Oppose per lack of experience. 5 months doesn't let me down, but (I don't know if the edit counter is messing around,) but less than 50 edits? WP:NOTNOW!!! I can see why you have no edit conflicts... But you are kind of on the right track. Sorry! Try again in a few months... K50 Dude ROCKS! 00:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC) P.S....anybody that thinks that the edit counter was being stupid to me, could you PELASE let me know on my talk page (click ROCKS! up on my sig.) because I just don't know... I feel it is letting me down...[reply]
    I'm really probably veering off of AGF here, but please read the nomination, the questions, and the full discussion before !voting based on a low edit count reason. The candidate explains why his low number of edits is not an issue. This is most assuredly not a NOTNOW issue. - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 00:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Last time I checked, you don't just look at the edit counter and immediately put a strong oppose. And you also don't scream "WP:NOTNOW!!!" with three exclamation points...or even one at someone.—Preceding unsigned comment added by R (talk • contribs)
    OK, that may have been a bit too much flaming, but I just don't trust the experience. It does look like he is good on Meta-Wiki, but I just can't give him sysop tools on this Wikimedia Project. 50 edits is lack of experience under any circumstance, especially to my standards. 50 is a good number of edits, but not for a sysop (hence the WP:NOTNOW). K50 Dude ROCKS! 01:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Any older Bitish editors care to redirect WP:NOWNOW to Jimmy Savile....? :) Pedro :  Chat  11:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well excuse me...Isn't this supposed to be civil? K50 Dude ROCKS! 21:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • deep intake of breath* Replied on your talk K50. Sigh. Pedro :  Chat  22:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Spam off back to de. RMHED (talk) 00:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    WTF? I suggest you refactor that. //roux   00:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Refactor off. RMHED (talk) 00:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just let it go, Roux et al. No bureaucrat is going to consider this vote, so for once let's demonstrate it's possible not to rise to the bait. --barneca (talk) 01:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Words of wisdom Barnacle, those 'crats know their stuff. Yeah lets sysop an editor with less than 50 edits on this project. Sure they only want to deal with spam so that's OK, but once sysopped there's fuck all stopping them embarking on all sorts of admin adventurism. RMHED (talk) 01:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    'Crats deal in community consensus, and sometimes use their own personal opinion as a modifier. They do not, however, act rightout on a personal opinion, and I beg of you not to demean them by suggesting it is as so. — neuro(talk) 23:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    RfA really isn't the right place for this kind of requests.After a week of thinking I have changed my mind. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 00:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He's requesting adminship - where else do you suggest? Majorly talk 00:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose. If the permissions came separately, I might feel otherwise, but I can't seriously entertain an RfA from an editor who claims "no edits" about himself. Self-admitted no experience. He may say he will only use the tools for SBL, but the best laid schemes o' mice an' men gang aft agley. - Revolving Bugbear 02:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose. Nothing personal, I just can't support handing out the tools to someone with that little experience on en-wiki. I've always thought it would be a good idea to allow specialised restricted admin permissions so that this kind of application could be allowed, but in the absence of this flexibility I must regretfully oppose. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strong Oppose Based on an absurdly low level of input on this project -- both in terms of quality and quantity. I have to state that I am utterly baffled: dedicated long-standing contributors to this project who've made thousands of edits are routinely picked apart in RfA over the most inane trivia and denied adminship, yet someone who has barely contributed anything to this project can waltz in and be treated like royalty. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "dedicated long-standing contributors to this project who've made thousands of edits are routinely picked apart in RfA over the most inane trivia and denied adminship" - oh, strongly agreed. But maybe the place to try and change that is on their RfAs. the wub "?!" 12:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I respectfully disagree. Change has to start somewhere, so let's start it here and now. This candidate has done nothing for this project, and the reward for nothing should not be a mop.Ecoleetage (talk) 17:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose per WP:NOTNOW. Probably will make a good admin at some point, but too little participation on en-wiki yet. Nsk92 (talk) 03:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose, although this is a tough call. I will gladly reconsider when the candidate gains additional experience on en-wiki. Majoreditor (talk) 04:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose. The request is predicated on limited applications of an array of tools which confer much wider powers. Whatever "temp admin at meta-wiki" actually means, it doesn't add legitimacy to a request for local en adminship. — Athaenara ✉ 04:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "temp admin" means temporary admin (my adminship there is limited to 6 months). by "meta-wiki" I mean m:Main Page. -- seth (talk) 10:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I do know what Wikimedia Meta Wiki Wikipedia:Meta is. The meaning of temporary adminship (which en wiki does not have) was unclear. The nominee's response to Question 5 (blockquoted below)

    Additional question from Ameliorate!
    5. Since a steward has told you they can not remove adminship without permission and that our recall process is completely toothless, would you consent to the condition that any administrator can indefinitely block you if you make any adminstrative action (regardless of what that action is) outside of the spamblacklist?
    A. Yes, that's ok for me. -- seth (talk) 02:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

    could almost persuade me to support but, having seen similar promises from controversial candidates broken, I recommend that he do the work he intends in user or project space, leaving changes which require admin tools to admins. — Athaenara ✉ 04:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    NOTE: Updated link above as previous "Wikimedia Meta Wiki" page (log) was moved to Wikipedia:Meta and the remaining redirect subsequently deleted (log). — Athaenara ✉ 14:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. Iustiger seth has not yet demonstrated sufficient interactions with other users on Wikipedia. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He has on two other wikis, though. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 14:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose 42 edits. Really? Trust doesn't transfer from wiki to wiki, and I see nothing here that shows me you would be a compotent admin.--Koji† 15:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose. I can't believe the support this is getting. Per Athaenara. Per Ecoleetage. Despite what areas this guy says he's going to work in, we're going to give him the bit? I understand RfA a little less every single day. Someone makes three questionable CSD tags four months ago, they get hammered. Someone with off-wiki credentials shows up with virtually no experience, we're going to confer admin powers? Tan | 39 15:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe we need to fine grain what admins can do for these special cases and define some special roles that don't require the entire adminship rigamarole? However, the guy didn't just show up with "virtually no experience", unless you think de:wp is chopped liver. I think asking someone to go through a bunch of busywork so that they can help us out by working in one not very popular/neglected area (witness the folk saying "this is important but I don't want to do it") is... a waste not a good use of anyone's time. Compare Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Herbythyme for reference. That one sailed through. ++Lar: t/c 15:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant to say virtually no English Wikipedia experience. Thanks (seriously) for the observation; my error. Tan | 39 15:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to pile on, but it really is an important distinction. The de-wiki is among the stricter branches of the global wiki, and he's a de-admin. In my opinion he's a relatively low-risk candidate for that reason alone. Reasonable people can of course disagree... but to address your original point, this is part of why seth is getting this level of support. Townlake (talk) 16:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He could be a beaurocrat, an ombudsman, a Jimbo of the de-wiki and this does not show me how he will perform here. That the de-wiki is "among the stricter branches" is a fully subjective statement. I need to see activity here. Not on some other wiki. How does he fit in with the en culture? Does he have strong communication skills? What if he decides to start acting in other admin arenas, despite his claims to stick to one forum, as happens quite often? While I think people quite often oppose by jumping on the "oppose-bandwagon", I think the opposite phenomenon is happening in this RfA. Tan | 39 16:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, for me personally... I saw this RfA and said, "Yeah right, let's save this guy the embarrassment of an RfA" and closed it speedily. But I thought about (for all of 15 minutes) and decided that since he was an admin on 2 of the stricter projects, that I would reopen the RfA---that my actions were premature. I then didn't check this RfA until this morning. I expected it to be closed by the time I came to work, but had decided to support because the key element of being an admin is trust and responsibility. And I do trust Seth based on his experience elsewhere.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 17:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I for one really ask my self what “[...] the stricter projects [...]” are? Could someone explain, please? I'm curious. :) —αἰτίας •discussion• 17:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Some projects have reputations for being burdened with stricter beaucracies because they have evolved to the point where their reputation matters and it's not just a small community any more. DE, Meta, EN, Commons are some of those. There are other projects, and I won't mention names, that are more at the blog level in terms of reliability. Virtually anybody can write virtually anything about a subject. These are generally the smaller ones---the one's that most people wouldn't even know existed.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 18:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I see. Thanks for the explanation, Balloonman. —αἰτίας •discussion• 18:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Although it won't change your mind and I can understand your doubts, I want to add some information concerning two of your requests:
    I need to see activity here.→ Have a look at this (big!) diff. That's the kind of stuff I'd do here in en-wiki.
    What if he decides to start acting in other admin arenas, despite his claims to stick to one forum, as happens quite often?→ See question 4. -- seth (talk) 17:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that de.wiki is stricter than en.wiki actually makes me less confident. One of the things they're stricter about is that they pull the trigger on blocks/bans a lot quicker than we do, in my experience. Maybe he'll be a better admin because of that ... or maybe he'll pull the trigger quicker than we would, too. And lest anyone take a promise of "I won't use X button" with anything other than a grain of salt, assume good faith but remember human nature. Also, remember what's happened in the past when people have said that. - Revolving Bugbear 03:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Strongest possible oppose I can't remember adding a strong oppose to a RfA, however in this case I even have to add my strongest possible oppose. Firstly, I have to say that I'm in perfect agreement with User:Ecoleetage, User:KojiDude, User:Tanthalas39 and User:Caulde here. Actually, I'm really astonished by what is happening here. How can I trust someone who has not demonstrated any of the things I expect from an admin? This user has 11 edits in the mainspace (!). Usually, such a RfA would be closed per WP:SNOW/WP:NOTNOW (justifiably!). Great, this user is an administrator on another Wikipedia. However, how can a user with virtually no experience on this wiki have enough policy knowledge? Simply, he can't. Summarising, this user has not contributed any content to this encyclopedia, he has no experience in any admin area, plainly he has no overall experience here. Any admin would reasonably decline a rollback request from this user, so how can this user be granted adminship? Again, I'm astonished and equally shocked by what is happening here. I really do hope that our bureaucrats won't count votes when closing this one, but rather carefully consider all arguments and concerns. —αἰτίας •discussion• 16:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Two things. Any admin who knows his work on other projects would grant him rollback. Second, admins need to be aware of the subtleties of en.wiki specific policies when they issue blocks, delete pages, close XfDs, etc. Spam-fighting on the other hand cannot be treated effectively as an en.wiki specific problem and if you've ever worked in this area you know how difficult it is to coordinate the efforts across the projects. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 16:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If you had taken the time to read my whole rationale, you would have seen that I wrote “[...] I have to say that I'm in perfect agreement with [...] User:Caulde”. So, what did User:Caulde write above? “We can't guarantee you'll use it for just the spam blacklist, so oppose”. Also, I may hint at what User:Mike R wrote above: “Like it or not, adminship is an all-or-nothing kind of deal, and all admins on this wiki should have an appropriate level of experience on this wiki.”. —αἰτίας •discussion• 16:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    People, if you are a sysop on two other projects, does that apply the same here? No. And it shouldn't! K50 Dude ROCKS! 21:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose per Caulde. Mike R (talk) 16:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Strong, but regretful, oppose Keepscases (talk) 16:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose per the rationales of Fvw, Tanthalas39, Aitias and this "I won't use the rights to do anything, which has nothing to do with the SBL." --Sandahl 16:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, English is not my first language. Perhaps that quoted sentence can be misunderstood. I did not mean the "rights to do anything", I meant "I will use the rights for SBL-related stuff only". However, I repeated in the response to question 4 what I wanted to say by this sentence. -- seth (talk) 17:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What you said was correct. The concern isn't what you said, but rather that we have no way to enforce that promise. The fear is that we give you the buttons for this legitimate reason, there is nothing to prevent you from using other tools (even legitimately.) For example, you see an article that clearly doesn't meet expectations (a clear attack page) and you delete it. While clearly justified, you've violated your promise. Now what if you decide to become more active here on the En project? What, besides your word, would prevent you from using the tools in another manner? You've given your word, but there is no enforcement method behind it and one of the areas where the En Project has a major failing is that it is difficult to remove the tools from somebody (even if they've made a promise during their RfA.) Unfortunately, we have seen people make promises during their RfA only to reneg on them afterwards.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 17:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I see. I could ask some steward now (before this RfA ends), whether he could de-admin me, if I renege on my promise. Would that be safer? -- seth (talk)
    I asked steward DerHexer per chat for that, but he said that this wouldn't be possible. Stewards need my agreement for that. He said, that I could put myself on the open to recall list. This I will do. But it seems that I unfortunately can't do anything else against those thoughts Balloonman was talking about. -- seth (talk) 20:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually what he said is not correct. What he meant was "I won't use the rights to do anything that has nothing to do with the SBL." That has quite a different meaning to "I won't use the rights to do anything, which has nothing to do with the SBL." Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thx, Axl, I corrected that. -- seth (talk) 19:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose. Sorry, I am German myself but I know why I work here. De-wiki is very different from en-wiki and while I do not want to imply that the candidate would make mistakes deliberately, there is a very good chance he will make them, not being familiar with the project at all. I think our admins here should be able to handle SBL just fine without having to "outsource" it to de-wiki admins. Regards SoWhy 17:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    See also my comment in the discussion section. I think we can create better ways to allow lustiger seth to work on SBL without giving him the tools. SoWhy 19:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose - per above. If you want to work on the spam black list, or assist, you can tell admins what needs to be added. But, otherwise due to your lack of contributions and knowledge of policies. In addition, how do we know this administrator is not controversial on .de? For that, I strongly oppose. miranda 17:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've looked through his contributions on .de and I don't see any signs of serious drama. However, my German isn't that great so I've had to use babelfish to a large extent. It might help if people who speak German could look at them. Moreover, his work on meta and commons seems drama free. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The links in Frank's support (currently #64) might help. Townlake (talk) 18:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose Per lack of experience, might need some more time.--Iamawesome800 20:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose - I appreciate this user's work on other projects, but I am concerned about his lack of experience on this particular project. kilbad (talk) 21:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Strong Oppose - Adminship requires trust. Trust requires commitment. You have proven neither. Adminship is not something to be handed out lightly. Sorry, but I can't support such a candidate as this. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think anyone disputes that lustiger seth is committed to Wikipedia. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 22:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    An admin in the German Wiki who comes here to help us with the spamlist, an area I would not go near? What's not to trust? Dlohcierekim 22:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a tough one... I want to show good faith to our sister projects, but Ottava made a very salient point on my talk page. Ottava is a great editor here, but has been a lightning rod for controversy and drahma. If she ran for RfA, it would be snowballed quicker than you could spell her name. Yet, she is an admin on another project---where her reception is different. Giggy, a person whom I think should be an admin here, has failed numerous RfA's despite being a 'crat on another project. Majorly, a person who was basically driven from his adminship here, is an admin elsewhere. The list could go on, but these are some of the high profile people who are admin's elsewhere. If we give Seth the tools, we are essentially establishing precedent because he has no real experience here.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 23:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Remember your Emerson: A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. Luckily, we don't have little minds here, so we don't have to have a one-size-fits-all ironclad policy that we have to apply rigidly to everybody, ragardless of whether it is good or bad for the encyclopedia. We can evaluate cases on their individual merits. Giggy, Majorly, your hypothetical Ottava-the-RFA-candidate... all were or would be applying to be full fledged admins, diving into blocking/deleting/protecting. This is a special case, where a special need can be met by a specialist, where he would be doing was he is already doing for the entire project, where he has promised not to stray from this area, and where he could be easily removed if that turned out not to be true. I think the comparison is flawed. --barneca (talk) 00:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And this makes the candidate unique how? We've had numerous people seek adminship in the past who are niche candidates---I LOVE niche candidates, which is part of the reason I initially supported him. People who differ from the typical mode are an invaluable asset to the community. People who work in areas that others don't are much more likely to get my support. But that being said, we've routinely denied SPA candidates because while they may show a need in one area, we can't grant the bit in individual areas. Your statement that all were or would be applying to be full fledged admins is not true for many of these candidates. We've routinely had people say, I want to be an admin to work in my pet project only. These people will be respected in their niche, trustworthy individuals, but seriously lacking in other key areas of the project. We just can't tell. I keep seeing people saying, "No reason not to trust the candidate" or that the candidate is "trustworthy." But with a few exceptions, most of us don't sprechen Deutsch zu gut. Mein Deutsch is sehr schlecht, und ich habe in Deutschlang gewohnt. Even so, I wouldn't dream of vetting Seth in German. Ottava made a key point on my talk page... I made a comment, that if I didn't know her, could be perceived as rude. But I knew her... her response was, I knew her because she had the edits here that I could know her. We don't have any history with Seth... as much as I would like to convey the bit to him, based on his work elsewhere, I just can't.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 02:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And this makes the candidate unique how? The candidate and situation are unique because this particular area (SBL) gains more than almost any other area I can think of offhand from cross-wiki coordination; because it's an area where, from all appearances, his abilities are in relatively short supply and his work will benefit us significantly; and an area where, more than most, we don't want non-expert admins fulfilling ((editprotected)) requests. I may very well be reading you wrong, but it seems like your main concern isn't being worried about Seth, but the (a) "fairness" to other potential candidates that don't get this treatment, and (b) the precedent it would set. The fact that other niche candidates are unfairly (in your I think, and my, opinion) prevented from gaining the bit if they promise to operate in only one area isn't a reason, by itself, to prevent it from happening this time. --barneca (talk) 15:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would add that this discussion has little to do with either showing good (or bad) faith to other projects, or with setting precedent. Just because we are largely relying on contributions elsewhere does not mean that acceptance or rejection of the candidate indicates similar acceptance or rejection of other wiki communities. As an analogy: when Arthur Andersen and Enron failed, the decisions that other firms made regarding hiring of employees were not referenda on either Andersen or Enron; they were decisions about the employees themselves. It is not true to say that any standard fate befell those employees regarding future employment; it really depended on them as individuals. Nevertheless, their previous employment certainly was what they were judged on, as we are hopefully doing here. As for precedent, it does not seem to me that approving one specialist admin - on his merits - sets any precedent other than the proper one: we evaluate candidates on their own merits, as it should be.  Frank  |  talk  00:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC) I do not mean to impugn .de by implying it is equivalent to either of those companies; I'm merely saying that the candidate is a candidate quite apart from the community he is a part of. In point of fact, the .de community is a robust one, by all accounts, and if anything would reflect positively on the candidate.[reply]
    Oppose, possibly moving to support/neutral – I've been thinking weather to support/oppose/neutral, but I think Balloonman (talk · contribs) above just broke the ice. I would have to agree with him. Sorry, but I think you do need more experience here on the English Wikipedia. I'm sure you are doing well on the other project you are an administrator at, but you just aren't ready here. – RyanCross (talk) 23:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To Balloonman and Ryan. Wikiversity is a very different project to Wikipedia. Ottava passed with, as far as I can see, a total of five votes in support back in September (see here) which really isn't saying a lot. Seth had a much larger turnout, both on de wiki and meta. Now Ottava may or may not have a controversial history on enwiki, I'm unfamiliar. But Seth, on his more active projects, has no controversy whatsoever. Just because we'd deny adminship to someone like Ottava does not make it right. Two wrongs do not make a right. I had hope for this RFA, but if this way of thinking continues, it's going to fail. He's completely trustworthy, and there's no reason at all to suggest he'd do anything bad. Even more so, he'll probably be watched closely once he passes as well. This is just sad. Majorly talk 00:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just wanted to note that I went through a month and a half long trial period to prove my worth, had no complaints during the time, and that there were 6 blatant supports (nom was a support), with more via IRC. I went through an hard vetting process and I use my tools only in uncontroversial areas and talk to others constantly. However, with that said, even I would not support myself on en.wiki as an admin. Why? Not enough time here to prove that I should be around. en.wiki is unique, and I think that someone would have to have at least 6 months of no problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To Ottava, Balloonman, and Ryan: I'd like to make a small comment. To me, this case appears unique. I view Seth's request for +sysop as a succinct offer to help us to do something better. I recognize spam as a significant plague on our project; and welcome any attempt to alleviate our concerns in that arena. My skills/interests/abilities do not coincide with editing the SBL; however, Seth's do. On the other hand, my work is non-specialist; thus, it was reasonable to require me to demonstrate sufficient project-wide knowledge at RfA. Seth, however, has offered to assist in a highly-technical manner in a very specialized area. This is not a "trophy" for him; but, rather an offer of assistance. I hope we accept his offer. Therefore, I urge us to consider giving Seth the ability to easily edit the SBL: hopefully, this will assist us with our Spam problems and allow us non-specialist editors to work in the areas we do best. Just my 2 pfennig :) Not trying to badger... Lazulilasher (talk) 00:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Offering to help Wikipedia by doing some extra work is something, but the history of the candidate is what I think matters more. Honestly, I don't see much experience, but I can understand if someone wants temporary adminship, just to work on spam blacklist with experience as an admin and what to do already. I've been doing more thinking (mainly how Seth just wants to help with the spam blacklist without much background here on English Wikipedia), and I suppose I could consider changing my !vote... I realize he has admin experience elsewhere, so I don't think he could cause much problems with the tools if Seth just wants to work on WP:SBL... but let me think more. The biggest problem for me is that he hasn't done much for English Wikipedia. But then again, he only wants to work on the spam blacklist... hmm... – RyanCross (talk) 04:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Note, I have decided to support Seth instead. – RyanCross (talk) 07:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose All summed up nicely above. Tool2Die4 (talk) 00:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - ::Not to disagree with your assessment, but your reasoning does not embrace AGF by using the rational that so and so did not get it because of this reason and so and so did not get it for that reason . Than so and so should not get it because experience gained in location A does not count for location B, even though location A and B conduct business in virtually the same manner. Or in other words, I do not care what you did for me there, no matter how stellar, you still need to prove yourself , because I said so! I guess we will not be winning any cooperation awards with our sister projects. Likewise, I am glad the real world does not follow the same model. I believe they called that feudalism. Thanks ShoesssS Talk 00:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh? Axl ¤ [Talk] 07:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh? ---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 15:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose. At a minimum, if we're giving him rights here based on his work at de.wikipedia.org, the burden should be on the candidate to show that he has very broad-based support there; I don't think he's met that burden, especially since most of us can't read German to check for ourselves. The candidate should have shown up here with strong recommendations from more people who are familiar with de.wp. Also, I might have this wrong, but couldn't Cheerful Seth simply work in his own userspace for 3 months, and admins could drop by once a day to upload his changes to the spamlist? This would take half a minute, or longer if the admin wants to take the time to vet the changes ... would that be a bad thing? If he needs broader powers to test things, can't he do his testing on his other two wikis? It's not my call what adminship means, but I'm pretty sure it's more than "We don't need to vet him ourselves because he promises he'll stay in one area". - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 00:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Respecting de-wiki user recommendations, check out the statement Minderbinder-de posted in the Discussion area above. Townlake (talk) 15:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Extremly Strong Oppose Strongest Oppose Possible' (Alex made me think of a very good reason to oppose. See below0 No offense, but even if you are an admin at de-wiki, does it matter here? en-wiki has a lot more in store for you, and there is nothing to stop you from using your tools on something else. Leujohn (talk) 12:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And what do you consider his consent that any administrator could block him indefinitely at anytime for absolutely any administrative action outside of SBL? Hogwash? I don't think so. – Alex43223 T | C | E 02:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm... Think of it this way. Even if we block him, he's still has admin tools. Although no one has tried it before, I think that if we don't de-sysop him, I think he can unblock himself. Leujohn (talk) 05:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but I was under the impression that self-unblocking is grounds for immediate de-sysop anyway. Ironholds (talk) 05:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    According to Leyjohn's edit, he didn't mean to strike his entire comment, but ends it after the "Extreme Strong Oppose." Unfortunately, WP isn't recognizing hte </s> and I can't figure out why not.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 14:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe I have fixed it; just removed the italics (from the excess ' sign I deduced they were working incorrectly). Ironholds (talk) 14:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose He does not really need permanent adminship. I would support granting him adminship temporally, say for six months, so he can update spam blacklist. This is much like temporal adminship on Meta, which Lustiger_seth already has. Ruslik (talk) 12:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, if there was a possibility of a temporary adminship here in en-wiki, I would request that (like I did on meta). Unfortunately there is no temp adminship here afaics. -- seth (talk) 12:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Strong oppose - unfamiliar with this project. --Complex (talk) 14:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I note that this user is an active de-wiki editor who, other than a few edits here and there, hasn't contributed to en-wiki regularly since August and hasn't contributed at all since october other than this oppose vote and a userpage change today. Something going on at de-wiki or elsewhere about this we don't know about? Ironholds (talk) 15:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Erm... no. --Complex (talk) 16:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi!
    I went into the irc-channel of german admins and asked for some opinions on this RfA, because of [4] and because of the comment above that (written by Dank55).
    I now asked Complex, who is admin in de-wiki btw, concerning this vote and he answered that he does not like the idea of admins who may use their rights partially only. -- seth (talk) 16:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    fair enough; thanks for clearing that up. You realise the opinions of de admins may not matter in this situation, of course. Ironholds (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh? We don't and shouldn't simply discount votes, whether physically or mentally just because an editor is more active at another language Wikipedia than this one. It simply doesn't make any sense. Have I misunderstood? — neuro(talk) 00:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Think about this for a minute. Seth got an oppose from a fellow de:wp admin... what did he do? Did he ignore it, or try to spin it as meaningless? No. He went and talked to that admin, and the result of the talk was that SETH clarified what Complex meant. In doing so it makes Complex's oppose stronger. Seth could have let it all slide and not reported back but he came here to clarify it, knowing that in doing so it might impact his cause. To me, that's a stronger sign than ever that Seth will be good for en:wp. Because, is not this approach of talking through things, seeking input, and telling the truth even if it's a negative to ones self... is this not exactly what we want our best admins to do? My support remains unwavering. ++Lar: t/c 13:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose. Sorry, not enough work on en.wiki. I could see the possible translation (no pun intended) of adminship from one wiki to another, but I need to see more work in the desired wiki before I can support. Useight (talk) 17:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose - Not enough experience on en.wiki, per all above. JS (chat) 20:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong oppose - I'm going to bang myself on the head for opposing an RfA that is now at WP:100, but with under 500 edits – and with the candidate's first edit here not even dating back four months – I feel uncomfortable with trusting you with the tools. Sorry, Seth. --Dylan620 Contribs Sign! 22:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He made his first edit in 2004, actually: [5]. Majorly talk 22:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Very well, then. However, my oppose stands due to the lack of edits. --Dylan620 Contribs Sign! 22:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, Lazulilasher has enticed me to change my vote to support. --Dylan620 Contribs Sign! 17:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose per lack of edits here per John Sloan and all similar opposes. I should add that the editor's work is excellent, but more work on en.wikipedia is needed.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose. He even admits he has little experience in here. Adminship is not given, it has to be earned. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, adminship is given, not earned. It's not a lollipop. It's given to responsible people who request it. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 15:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    When I mean earn, I mean earning respect. Adminship is quite different from rollback. Rollback is a tool that is given to anyone who doesn't have edit-warring history. Adminship is not given simply because you don't edit war. OhanaUnitedTalk page 23:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Moved to neutral, I suppose no reason to not AGF, plus I don't like to oppose unless absolutely necessary, and the reasoning of asher below makes me happy. Further it's holidays, and Sainsbury's had Moet for £20 and therefore I'm in a good mood. Although don't be cheeky, as I've yet to open any of the three bottles I bought and therefore am thinking clearly! Possibly shockingly this is my first oppose, but I do believe I'd like to see more experience with en-wiki first before making someone an admin. I do understand the speciality dimension here, but as noted tools don't come adhoc and I believe a little time to wait and see will not be detrimental to the project. As noted above things work slightly differently on en vs de-Wiki, ie personalities, sensitivities, etc. I do not see why we shouldn't ask for him to show us what he can and will do here before giving the full set of tools. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 13:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment to Nja247. I understand the thought behind your oppose, and do think it is legitimate. I was wondering, however, if you notice that Seth has pledged (quite overtly) do only work on the SBL? Further, many current admins who work on the SBL (both globally and locally), such as Versageek and Nixeagle (both editors whom I highly admire), have vouched for his technical knowledge, trustworthiness, and abilities. The reason that I support Seth is that he offers to help us perform better in an area in which we could use more manpower. This area happens to be technical and confusing (believe me: I've tried to help out there--it's WAY over my head...); and we could use his expertise. In light of this, perhaps we should grant him edit access to the Spam Black List (currently editable by sysops) so that he can help more efficiently rid the project of spam. This would have the effect of allowing us "non-techie" editors to focus more acutely in our own areas of expertise. Again, I understand if your oppose still stands; but, I wanted to provide you with reasons why I think we could use Seth's assistance. Lazulilasher (talk) 17:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose per answer to question from Ameliorate! There is only one category of administrator on Wikipedia and this kind of assurance is completely toothless. A user that doesn't understand this can't be ready for adminship even if he does have it somewhere else. The alternative is that he does understand this but chooses not to address the issue. Ameliorate!'s question was unfair in my opinion, but that does not mean that I can ignore what I consider to be an overly simplistic response. Good judgement is necessary even when spam fighting and this user has not demonstrated it. CrispMuncher (talk) 20:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    True, it's hard to imagine that an admin would block him indefinitely for, say, blocking a user that's sending him obscenity after obscenity on his talk page. But what sort of answer where you expecting him to give Ameliorate? He's promised to stick so SBL and it's pretty clear from his past that he has no interest in getting involved in other areas on the en.wiki. For what it's worth, I'd be willing to block seth if he breaks his promise and let the block stick until he either is desysoped or confirmed through a second RfA. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 20:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I asked the question because without this kind of deal we would be stuck - once someone has passed an RFA there is no way to get rid of them in a timely manner. I trust Seth will stick to the SBL but in the event he doesn't there is a black and white reason to IAR and press the block button; which I for one will do. ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 01:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That might be preventative in terms of keeping a record of his behaviour but in terms of preventing further "violations" can't admins just unblock themselves? Seems like discussing it with the user and the community would cause less drama and disruption to the project than some kind of wire-trip instablock. Guest9999 (talk) 03:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    An admin unblocking themselves is grounds for immediate desysopping on any project, so that wouldn't be an issue. - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 03:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is missing the central issue. There is only one kind of administrator: see WP:PERENNIAL#Administrative and WP:LAM. Any undertaking here has no enforceability since when we grant admin privileges we are explicitly granting them over the whole range of administrative duties. There seems to be an attempt to present this RfA as merely a technical issue, and the issue is only one small and relatively uncontroversial area. This is wrong. It is proposed that we make the candidate a full administrator with all the rights and responsibilities that entails. Any blocking of the candidate for going outside his designated area would be wrong and would not stand up: the user could in no way be considered to be acting improperly simply by using the very tools that the community has chosen to give him. This is precisely why I oppose this candidate: a user that does not understand this does not understand the administrator role and therefore cannot be considered a suitable candidate for it. If his answer to Ameliorate!s question had been along the lines of "That isn't possible because of the way the role is defined" or even "No, I wouldn't accept that" I would probably be neutral. It is the failure to understand this point that in my opinion disqualifies the candidate from the role. CrispMuncher (talk) 19:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose, and if that's "very disrespectful" then so be it. I really didn't want to get involved in this one but it looks set to end in the discretion zone. I have no idea if you're the best thing that ever happened to de.wiki, but – while I think this shouldn't be the situation – unfortunately I've no way to judge you, and what's appropriate at one project isn't necessarily appropriate at another. (Until recently, three admins at Wikiquote were Poetlister accounts, and Kelly Martin is still an admin at Commons.) I don't know whether you'll stick to your specialist area, and I don't know whether you understand how our rules differ from .de. If there was a way to give you specialist powers in this area only I'd support it, but there isn't. – iridescent 17:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose I have to agree with Aitias and Kojidude. SpencerMerry Christmas! 20:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Insufficient Experience Any time you need help with the spam black list, please post a request and somebody will take care of it for you. If you don't get fast enough response, ask me and I'll try to help. Jehochman Talk 11:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've had bad experiences in the past with RFA promises not being enforceable. Once you are +sysop, you can do whatever you like and it is very difficult to do -sysop on enwiki. Sorry, because I would like to support. Jehochman Talk 14:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Doesn't intend to do any sysop work. (Question 1). Prodego talk 15:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you mind clarifying why you don't consider editing the sysop-only page of the SBL to be sysop work? Certainly this guy isn't planning on doing many of the conventional sysop jobs, but surely given his specific en-wiki experience that would be a bad thing? ~ mazca t|c 15:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is Wikipedia:Requests for Adminship. There is no such thing as partial adminship, if you want to edit a protected page, but don't want adminship, we have ((editprotected)). Since seth has no intention of being an admin, he has no need for adminship. Prodego talk 15:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd beg to differ; there is partial adminship. The majority of admins don't edit in the MediaWiki namespace; yet, they are not refused the bit at RfA. We allow RfAs to pass without bringing up the MediaWiki Namespace; and, most admins only partially use their tools (you do edit the MW namespace, I notice). Yet, we don't reject their adminship applications because of their inexperience with MW; even though there is much damage to be done by the inexperienced user in that arena.
    I suspect that we don't ask our admin cadre to be versed in the MediaWiki Namespace because it is bizarre; it's the bastard child of namespaces. I went over to the MW Namespace to help out the other day. I couldnt; it wasn't even written in an Indo-European language. It looked like all of the vowels were replaced with !, /, *, and "$". I had a nightmare once that the MediaWiki namespace ate my cat. Look, what I am saying is this: we allow most admins to pass RfA WITHOUT knowledge of MW. Perhaps we could excuse Seth's lack of knowledge in policy because of his "over knowledge" (which is vouched for by his colleagues) in the MW namespace. This is the inverse of what we do normally: we excuse normal editors lack of MW knowledge. It's just a thought; I understand if you oppose. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 18:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. The fact that you only intend to use the admin tools to edit the SBL is practically weightless in my decision to oppose. You will have access to all the tools and you are going to be able to use them without question — so this is like any other RfA by a user who is new to our project. If this doesn't pass, come back in a few months once you are familiar with the English Wikipedia, it's policies and guidelines and once the community is familiar with you. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. oppose - we have 1,300 admins, make a request of someone on the off chance you actually need tool useage here. Also, per some of the other comments, en.wikipeida is not de.wikipedia, is not commons.wikipedia; each have separate criteria for adminship both granting and removal. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, it's more like 950 admins, all of which have better things to do than repeatedly making edits requested by seth on SBL. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 21:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly, no, I don't have better things to do. Prodego talk 21:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (comment on Pascal's comment, not Prodego's; it's hard to thread this properly when everything one usually does to clarify breaks the bot) And the number of admins who have any business at all messing with the SBL is much smaller than 950. As in, it looks to me like in the last 3 months, it's been about a dozen people. I know I'll never mess with it. And, as I recall, an admin was recently threatened with blocking (!) for editing it without knowing exactly what they were doing. In this case, the "hack" of giving him the bit is much safer than the alternative; from the "character references" of his work at Meta and de.wiki, we already know he knows what he's doing in this area. --barneca (talk) 21:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Precisely. I was asked the other day to make an edit to the MediaWiki interface. I, of course, declined (as I've got no clue what in the world the MediaWiki interface really does). I think it much more dangerous to ask a random admin; most of whom are like me, and have little or no idea how to properly edit the interface. From comments of those active in that area, it looks quite clear that there is a need for additional editors. I propose we allow Seth the ability to do what he has done elsewhere: optimize the blacklist. Lazulilasher (talk) 21:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Sorry, I can't support someone who does not contribute to the wiki in the broader sense but wants the admin tools anyway. Show me some general contributions over a period of time and I am sure I will support. However I will remember you if I need some admin help on the de wiki. ww2censor (talk) 00:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    How is it relevant that he contribute to articles when that is completely separate from what he intends to do? Don't mix apples and oranges.   jj137 (talk) 03:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Because as an en admin lustiger should, imho, have some experience as an all rounder on this wiki, even if he does specialise in a particular areas. If there were specialist spamblacklist admins then he would get my vote for that specialty, but admins should be able to deal with most issues thrown at them and I believe that comes from broader experience that I see here. ww2censor (talk) 04:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In principal, I agree completely with you. It is admirable for an admin to have experience with consensus building, contentious article work, and deletion work (amongst other things). This case, in my opinion, is quite different. We would ideally have an admin candidate before us today who is fluent in all of those aspects AND in the MediaWiki namespace. The reality, however, is different. We have a lack of editors (as evidenced above) in this area. Seth has offered to assist us; therefore, I wouldn't so much say that "he wants the tools anyway", but rather that he wants to assist us anyway. To me, this is not so much about an editor "wanting to be an admin" as it is about an editor "wanting to fix a rather technical and confusing aspect of the project". Again, just my two cents. Lazulilasher (talk) 05:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Lazulilasher, editors are entitled to their own opinions; please stop feeling the need to rebut each one. Caulde 14:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, RfA is a discussion. I think rebuttals are good for discussion. Regardless, I am getting too involved, you are correct. I'll stop now. Lazulilasher (talk) 15:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (reply to ww2censor) I kinda hate to say it, but if you're saying he should be able to handle anything thrown at him, I think (in a way) seth is the same as a good portion of our admins. I, for one, never touch certain areas of admin work, and as long as I stay far from them, nothing gets "thrown at me" that I'm unfamiliar with. Some admins work almost exclusively in vandalism- J.delanoy comes to mind there. Seth is the same, the way I see it; the only difference is that he only wants to work with our blacklist. I'm not try to start an argument or anything, just trying to explain what I mean. (And on an unrelated note, this is my one-year adminship anniversary :P)   jj137 (talk) 20:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not saying that he must be able to handle all admin tasks but as an admin he should at least be familiar with all the different admin topics because he is an admin and we minions have much less knowledge of those topics then you admins. If he cannot deal with a particular situation then he will know a fellow admin who will know it better than he does. I quite understand that people specialise in different areas, but a general knowledge should be the basic for the speciality. As I wrote at the beginning I just feel an admin should show some more general contributions that I feel is needed to give him a wider perspective before being nominated. That's just my opinion and now I am finished defending my simple oppose. ww2censor (talk) 23:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I'm done talking as well, I've explained what I meant and I don't have anything else to say.   jj137 (talk) 00:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Oppose in the past, an editor promised that they would use the tools only in non-heated areas, and would resign the tools under certain conditions. Since then, they have been the subject of multiple arb cases, have been presented the conditions referenced above, and are regularly in the thick of things. Until promises can be enforced, they cannot be made. Feel free to mirror the blacklist on a non-functional page and wait for an admin to copy it over. Hipocrite (talk) 16:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not that I don't trust you, but I've not heard about this, and it might make me change stance. Could you give the name of the editor so I can check the similarities and differences? Thanks. — neuro(talk) 16:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Oppose I really want to support, because it would set an interesting precedent that this whole thing we do isn't possibly a game, and that specific very niche adminships are acceptable and serve a valid purpose--which I believe they do. But... until we have a way to enforce that either by mechanics (splitting permissions/sysop bits) or by removing +sysop from people that break their promises, I don't know if it's a good idea. It's honestly nothing personal, and I really would like to say yes, but until we can control it more finely post-sysopping, I can't.
    I don't care about the general lack of experience, especially as it relates to that niche role--it doesn't matter, if he only worked on what his already technical specialty is. Opposing based on that, to me, is like opposing a candidate that spends 99% of their time working on Image-related work of Category related work because they don't spend enough time on policy discussions. Specialists ARE valuable, but for ones with no general experience here, it's harder to go with that trust that they'll stick to that one corner. If they don't, we can't do anything about it. In my example above of an image or category specialist with, say, 5000 related edits here, I'd be less worried about them moving over to ANI or AIV or somewhere else, since they're a known quantity. rootology (C)(T)
  43. Oppose, per Aitias. →Na·gy 22:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Oppose I consider the reconfirmation this candidate is proposing as a form of a recall promise, and thus must oppose. Skinwalker (talk) 00:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Regretful oppose To get the admin bit here requires that you get accustomed to the conventions and community here, and that you gain the trust of the community here on en.wiki, not anywhere else. Trust is non-transferable. Lack of participation here makes it hard to discern whether the user is used to handling affairs here. Can I further emphasize the word "here"? —kurykh 09:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. I can't support handing out the full set of tools permanently to a user unfamiliar with this project. For your purpose, there's ((editprotected)). --Oxymoron83 15:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral Can't support right now. His answers really don't explain much. America69 (talk) 00:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have explained more since. -- seth (talk) 10:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral may return to my initial thought of oppose, based upon the convincing argument Ottava gave on my talk page.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 23:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)Going back to neutral... I just can't decide on this one. My heart wants to support, my brain wants to oppose. Who to listen to...---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 15:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a comment that all this switching you're doing is a good thing; since it's supposed to be a Discussion Not A VoteTM, the fact that someone can be persuaded (multiple times! ;) ) to change their mind is a sign that maybe it really is a discussion after all... --barneca (talk) 15:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm so on the fence on this one that it is driving me crazy! I have strong feelings BOTH ways, so ultimately, if it passes I will be both happy and disappointed, if it fails, I will be both happy and disappointed. Either way... which means, neutral.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 16:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)EDIT: Still watching... nothing entices me to move either to support or oppose, but I do think the opposes are making a stronger case.q---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 05:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral Good admin at de.wiki, but activity at EN (or lack thereof) is enough to cancel any possible support. Sam Blab 14:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral Balloonman took the words stright out of my mind! I simply cannot decide! Andy (talk) 19:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a first! I've been cited for support... and opposes... but I don't think I've ever been cited for a neutral ;-)---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 17:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, there is a first time for everything! :D. Andy (talk) 13:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral Moved from oppose, where my original reasoning and new reasoning are still intact. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral moved from Oppose without prejudice for a speedy re-listing for now, check back after actively participating in 10 separate/unrelated en-wiki SBL threads spread over at least a month. I want to see how you interact with SBL participants and if most of your suggested changes are accepted by your peers. You are about 4 threads over about 3 weeks, which just isn't enough. Also, not speaking German, my ability to spot-check your ability to not tick people off is limited. I'm inclined to assume good faith per your existing permissions on other boards and support you come January or February though. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC) moved to neutral davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    On a related note, there needs to be a category of pages, including the SBL page, that crats or even administrators can grant edit-rights to on an as-needed, time-limited basis. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Reason for move to neutral: I have extremely high confidence he won't stray from his charter to admin-edit only SBL-related pages, and I have extremely high confidence he won't be reckless or worse, deliberately screw things up. However, he doesn't know the en-wiki SBL well yet, at least as it differs from the ones he's worked on. He also doesn't know the en-wiki community well, so what might be a no-brainer decision to make a change on the German wiki's spam list might require some discussion or be outright rejected on the English wiki. More time spent in the SBL as a non-admin would address these concerns, which is one of the reasons I opposed "without prejudice for a speedy re-listing." If this RFA is approved, I hope he edits with extreme caution until he gets a better feel for the en-wiki way of doing things. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral It would feel silly to oppose this clearly good intention for bureaucratic reasons, but there are real concerns. What if Seth suddenly feels morally obliged to use the tools outside SBL during some heated conflict here on enwp? Could you have admins here do the SBL edits for you instead? Do you intend to change the scope of SBL in any way, or just refractor? --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral. I really want to WP:AGF here, but I simply can't due to the lack of edits. The concerns raised above are very realistic, but your adminship in other areas means I cannot oppose, as you clearly have experience as an admin. DARTH PANDAduel 01:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral per pretty much every neutral !vote above; there's not much I can add. If there was partial adminship, I'd support with little reservation, but... let's just say that trust isn't an issue, but it is. -- Mike (Kicking222) 22:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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