Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sgeureka

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

Sgeureka

Final (92/19/2); Closed by Rlevse at 02:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Sgeureka (talk · contribs) – I became an active wikipedian in February 2007 and have over 20,000 edits now. I almost immediately loved working on non-popular or abandoned sets of articles and started out with cleaning up WP:DAB- and name-related backlogs before becoming interested in abandoned fiction/television articles (I am active in WP:TV, WP:STARGATE, and the resurrection of WP:FICT). Although I am comfortable and familiar with many administrative wiki areas (I lurk around various places), my main wiki activities of merging and building articles never necessitated me to ask for admin tools. However, since I started working on reviewing various fiction categories for merger and deletion candidates a few months ago, I've had to deal with so many (mostly) noncontroversial db-catempty, prod-nn and TfD, that having admin tools would help me reduce backlogs instead of enlargening them. After reading the current self-nom discussions at WT:RFA today, I thought I'd boldly give RfA a try and see if I have the trust of the community without sugarcoating my popularity and contributions for weeks. I am fine with any RfA result. – sgeureka t•c 01:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

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: I'd definately help with noncontroversial speedies like C1 and G6, and the recurring backlogs at Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Malplaced disambiguation pages (always wanted to do that). I'd occasionally help in closing dab- and fiction-related AfDs, TfDs, and deleting expired prods, but I'd restrict myself to non-controversial XfDs in the beginning (I am a devout mergist, so I'd only use the deletion button in clear-cut cases anyway). Sockpuppets of User:Sheynhertz-Unbayg haven't shown up in a while, but since the admins User:Kusma and User:Shoeofdeath have had their periods of inactivity, I'd keep looking out and block SU's sockpuppets (and only those). But I'll mostly stick to what I already do, merging and article building.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: You can find my main article interests on my userpage, to which I usually stick until I am satisfied with their quality. I'd say my best contributions are (1) cleaning up hundreds of disambig-cleanup pages as listed under User:Sgeureka/Dab, (2) finishing the WP:SU surname backlog in collaboration with mainly User:Shoeofdeath, (3) creating Wikipedia:Featured topics/Carnivàle all on my own (with much appreciated help for copyediting), (3) getting Pride and Prejudice (1995 TV serial) to FA, (4) decruftifying WP:STARGATE and getting rid of hundreds of nn SG articles without much fan drama (ongoing process), and (5) reviewing and cleaning up Category:Television episodes by series, see User:Sgeureka/Episodes (ongoing process). I just started work on my first non-fiction article (Ampelmännchen), which I hope to take to at least GA (wouldn't that make a great odd TFA?).
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: Yes, that's almost unavoidable, but I see everything as a learning experience and always strive to avoid repeating mistakes. I used to get stressed out by new wiki situations, notably my first AfD where consensus went against me, my first FAC, my first quick-failed GA, my first encounter with a nationalist German-hating troll without my noticing it (he was eventually community-banned), and the E&C arbcom cases[1][2] (I was named as a party in the first case and also participated in the second one, but my actions were never the subject). Gladly, there aren't that many things on wikipedia anymore that I haven't done before. By chance, I came across Wikipedia:Don't-give-a-fuckism and Wikipedia:Ignore all dramas about a year ago, and have rarely ever become stressed out again.
As I am a mergist fiction editor, it is not surprising that I have occasional run-ins with emotionally invested fan editors who understandably don't like to see their in-universe articles destroyed. I deal with that by trying not to address fan editors in person and keep the conversation about the articles, policies and guidelines to avoid causing extra stress for inexperienced fan editors (although I very occasionally fall victim to my real-life behavior of rebutting (never initiating) sarcastic-defiant replies with sarcastic-but-self-indulging reverse logic to illustrate what's wrong with the arguments). No matter how much care and diplomacy goes into these merge proposals, they can always lead to (erroneous) appearances of passive-agressive mocking or fait accompli, inadvertantly giving rise to power struggles and worsening the situation even more. I found employing time-stamped cleanup tagging and waiting a few months (if necessary) useful before proceeding with the merger/merge proposal. You'll find countless examples of my merge proposal interactions in my contribs and on my talkpage, and while not each one went down perfectly, I am satisfied with how most of them turned out.
Additional questions from seresin
4.You said above that you do intend to close not clear-cut fiction-related AfDs (either now or then). Do you consider this particularly wise, given your voiced and demonstrated opinions on this matter? Do you believe you will be able to close these AfDs disinterestedly and with a correct reading of consensus? Do you have any concerns about potentially being seen as having a conflict of interest, and how this will affect how your closings are viewed?
A: I consider it generally wise to avoid closing non-clear-cut fiction AfDs as delete as long as WP:FICT is still so controversial and when articles have somewhat of a potential. It seems to me (I could be wrong though) that most fiction editors just want bad fiction articles to be gone, and don't care if the AfD result is delete or redirect. In such non-clear-cut cases, I'd always prefer to close as merge/redirect to allow interested parties to cull&merge (hey, I'm an article builder who occasionally does exactly that). I am painfully aware of whenever I have a COI, in which case I refrain from participating in discussions (when someone else started a discussion) or from bold actions (when I want something to happen). Applied to AfDs, I'd simply refrain from closing AfDs and leave it other admins, and the problem is solved.
Additional questions from Nsk92
5. I see that on Dec 7 you placed a whole bunch of prod tags but did not notify the articles's creator(s). Why not?
A: When I started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wanted: Wade a few days ago (result: deletion for non-notability), I clearly stated that I'd deal with the other ep articles accordingly. Since I had advertised the initial AfD on the show's talk page[3] and informed the article starter[4] (who also created all other ep articles), I assumed that every interested editor would know that the other ep articles would be up for deletion next. So my answer is I simply tried to save time on needless bureaucratical cover your ass-type stuff.
Additional question from Malinaccier
6. What do you believe the Wikimedia Foundation should do about the Internet Watch Foundation's block of Wikipedia in the UK?
A. I just read about this an hour ago, and I don't really know what to make of this. Since my country may not be as reserved about (child) nudity as the UK and the US are (no offense), I regard the IWF's actions as censorship instead of readership protection, and the Foundation should not cave in per WP:NOTCENSORED (it would set a bad precedent). But I am not a lawyer, and my knowledge about the structure of the UK internet is limited, so I can only hope that people smarter than me can figure out a solution so that UK-based volunteers can get back to editing.
Additional questions from User:Deacon of Pndapetzim
7. Is it a fact that WP:Edit warring promotes numbers over editing-quality?
A: I'd say not yet. As long as WP:EW and WP:3RR are separate pages (there are proposals several times a year to merge them), EW explains what edit warring is and why it's bad (and refers to 3RR as a sanity check), while 3RR is the policy to draw a/the number-based line.
8. Explain why this edit is or is not a violation of WP:BLP
A: Facts: Thane Rosenbaum is a living person. An editor made a claim about Rosenbaum on a talkpage of a non-biography article (BLP is about "adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page", but still mostly deals with articles). The editor in question provided a source to back up his claim. Anti-semitism and the holocaust are controversial topics, and some people get offended by the most harmless things, while other people hold beliefs (e.g. Holocaust denial) that gets my blood boiling.
This edit is murky because it is a factual statement ("there are Jews who believe X") combined with opinion ("obviously"), so it's a judgement call if this is a violation of BLP, depending where you put/read the emphasis. But as some people likely see me as biased in this matter simply because I'm German, I should not be the one to make this judgment call. If an editor ever asked me (as an admin) to step in there, I'd recuse myself. Sorry for this non-answer.


General comments

  • See Sgeureka's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

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

Discussion

  • Would you rather that this page be at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/sgeureka? –thedemonhog talk • edits 06:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I almost accidentally created this RfA there, so no. Wiki software standardized my username with a capital S when I signed up, so any official business should be standardised as well IMO. I am not *that* special in the end. :-) – sgeureka t•c 17:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not swayed by opposer's concerns; in fact, I would personally not object that much to someone like TTN being a sysop, provided it's not so extreme; in this case, sgeureka does not plan to close contentious fiction-related debates, so that does not seem to be a problem. I am convinced that sgeureka will be an effective sysop. Maxim(talk) 20:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  1. I like everything I read, talkpage archives seem fine, editor shows an abundance of clue, maturity and has a refreshing attitude. Skomorokh 01:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support – good editor. Like the excellent content contributions and the cool head. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 02:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong support, an excellent editor who should be an even better admin. Good luck. :-) Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 02:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support I think he is a net plus. MBisanz talk 02:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support- I've seen Sgeureka around, and this editor has always strongly radiated clue. Reyk YO! 02:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Epbr123 (talk) 02:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. From what I see, a superb candidate. Will make a fantastic administrator. Master&Expert (Talk) 03:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support per these standards. - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 03:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. A clear head and an ability to handle stress are crucial as an admin, and you clearly have both. DARTH PANDAduel 03:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Summertime, and the living is easy -- fish are jumping and the cotton is...uh, is this where they're staging Porgy and Bess? Oh, wrong queue. But while I am here: Support for a net positive contributor who is clearly in tune with the project's needs and who won't bring a diva attitude to adminship. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support I can't even foresee anything terrible coming out of this. Would be a fine admin. Yanksox (talk) 04:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Smart contributor. Calm, productive and civil. Like sephiroth says, it is a rare person who makes it to RfA without being passionate about something. We are all here because we are passionate. Sometimes some people confuse that passion in themselves for righteousness. Sometimes they confuse the need for passion with a need to passionately argue. I don't think Sgeureka does either of those things. I think that he has strong feelings about inclusion, fiction and so on, but that he knows how to separate those feelings from cases where it is desirable or necessary to use the tools. I have no reason to feel that Sgeureka will abuse the tools and every reason to feel that they will be a net positive. I expect some opposes solely on the basis of his AfD contributions or on his application of NOT/N/NOR to articles and article debates. I would hope that individuals viewing those opposes separate out the opinions on content with the trustworthiness of the individual. We have every shade of administrator. Permissive inclusionists. Radical inclusionists. Deletionists. And everyone in between. Their position on that spectrum does not make them a 'bad' administrator. What makes a good or a bad administrator is their willingness to communicate, their trustworthiness and their judgment. Sguereka has those qualities. Protonk (talk) 05:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak Support I didn't see any obvious reasons to oppose, but his experience in the wikispace area dealing with adminly area is somewhat limited.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 05:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support I didn't find anything unsettling. Wisdom89 (T / C) 05:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support From what I can see this editor doesn't have any skeletons in his closet. He seems like an intelligent user; I can support him. -- Nomader (Talk) 05:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Civil and sensible user; regardless of their wiki-ideologies I don't see there being any problems should they get the tools. Guest9999 (talk) 06:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. Seems experienced enough. -- Mentisock 10:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. although we are on opposite sides of the idealogical fence when it comes to notability, has contributed quality content and has the 'pedia's goals at heart. net positive. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Net Positive with the tools. Pedro :  Chat  14:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Weak support. While I do not see much experience in the projectspace, there is no evidence you will abuse the tools. Your answers are intelligent and appear honest, so there's no reason not to trust you. Good luck, Malinaccier P. (talk) 14:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC) Thank you for the good answer to my question. Malinaccier (talk) 19:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - I analyzed his edits, there is nothing to worry about. Net Positive. AdjustShift (talk) 14:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support As per track the user has been around since Jan 2007 and has over 13000 mainspace edits and is a good editor after reviewing contributions. [5] Feel giving the user the tools will despite a relative lack of experience as pointed out by Malinaccier only be a net plus to Wikipedia.Do not see misuse of tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support clearly an encyclopedia enthusiast and will try to do the right thing. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 14:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support He is doing a very good job merging/cleaning up articles. Certainly has my vote. -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 16:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. 山本一郎 (会話) 16:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. An enthusiastic administrator candidate. Caulde 17:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Less tolerant of fictional articles than me, but trust him with the tools. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 18:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Keepscases (talk) 18:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support - After a slight analysis of Sgeureka's contributions and talk page archives, I see nothing of concern. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support - All of my experiences with this editor have been positive. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 19:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Positive contribs. America69 (talk) 19:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Good, quality user, so yeah.--Iamawesome800 20:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. Sqeureka's role in the "sysop spectrum" (see Protonk's above) quite fits my own view on inclusion/merging. Long history of edits/moves/discussions in the tv fiction beehive has been sufficient training for adminship (specifically, the ability to handle large blocks of related articles as a whole). NVO (talk) 21:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. Well-spoken and well-deserving. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 22:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support - No problems here. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. Good, clear judgment. Knows how to deal with others constructively. Doesn't get into personal wrangles, a very big asset. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Monster Under Your Bed (talk) 06:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Disappointed that I did not get here sooner—WP:RFA is going back on my watchlist, effective immediately. I trust sgeureka fully, having interacted with this calm and helpful user and followed his (I think) contributions for some time now. –thedemonhog talk • edits 06:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Civil and intelligent user. Spoke with him a while ago about a possible nom for the mop, I wish he would have let me know that he was planning on running so I could at least drop a co-nom. :P I would like to note quickly that I share A Nobody's views in hoping that Sgeureka will be extremely careful in deletion discussions on fictional topics, but I know he's got good sense. GlassCobra 08:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This was a spur-of-the-moment RfA without any planning, and I thought I'd either have the trust of the community already, or I don't, in which case getting an admin to (co-)nom me would just sneakily deflect from my demerits. ;-) But I admit that your previous RfA consideration for me made me comfortable for this bold action in the first place. – sgeureka t•c 09:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. Interacted quite a bit with Sgeureka in the past, never had a bad encounter. Has done some outstanding work bringing the Stargate material up to encyclopedic, even FA/FL, standards. As with GlassCobra, I would have gladly co-nommed, and had in fact discussed this with GC in the past. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 12:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Strong Support — Project will definitely benefit from his having the tools. Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support; and how. I don't think I've encountered another contributor who is more patient, willing to listen and compromise, and makes fantastic use of that little "discussion" tab on pages. I wish this editor could collaborate on everything, I and expect best things from his or her administratorship. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 16:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Fit for it. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Definitely. Good answers and good user. Deserves the mop :) [Belinrahs | 'sup? | what'd I do?] 19:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. For now. Seems like a NP, but his AFD closures are causing me doubt. —Ceran♦(speak)◙ 22:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support per A. Nobody's rebutal of RHMED's concern.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 20:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not that I mind the extra support, but you already weak supported above. :-) Indented. – sgeureka t•c 21:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Now I have to question your judgement... you strike my support while leaving the weak support... a wise man would have struck the weak support ;-) ---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 19:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, even though I am still not sure and still theoretically in the oppose camp, I am happy that my detailed evaluation below did have a positive influence on someone and have added you to my List of nice Wikipedians. Cheers! --A NobodyMy talk 00:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support - meets my standards, and we could use an admin who knows the difference between fancruft and pop culture. Bearian (talk) 22:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Oh yes. Sceptre (talk) 23:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support - I appreciated the answers given, and would be comfortable trusting this user with administrator responsibilities. kilbad (talk) 00:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support I am frequently opposed to his views on some types of articles, but he's always been rational about it. I therefore hope to convince him yet. (But even if I never do, I do not see any indication that he would use the tools wrongly, and the general level of his work is fine). DGG (talk) 05:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Aye Excellent candidate, need more like this. Black Kite 09:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Strong support, and I very rarely give that !vote. Would bring a level of rationality to some AFDs that have lacked clue lately. Stifle (talk) 11:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. I agree with Stifle, immediately above. Deor (talk) 16:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support I must admit I have not yet interacted with this user anywhere on the project but, having read the nomination and the answers to questions as well as reviewing this candidate's contributions, I readily admit that I am thoroughly impressed with his efforts so far. Thank you for nominating yourself and please continue the good work! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support --EEMIV (talk) 17:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. I have worked with this user closely over long periods of time and am absolutely confident that he will make a fine administrator. I can also personally vouch for his ability to deal with sockpuppets mentioned in question 1. Any serious examination of this user's myriad contributions to the project will reveal both an intimate knowledge of policy and an unrelenting dedication to the improvement of this encyclopedia. That the granting of admin tools to sgeureka will have a positive effect on Wikipedia is as indisputable as it is an understatement in my mind. There are not many others in whom my trust is so certain; as such I support this nomination without reservations. shoeofdeath 19:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support My recent interactions with him have borne out others' statements about his balance and reasonableness in cleanup, and his AfD conduct has been reasonable and appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 19:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support - I have a rather different view to you on certain issues, but as far as I can see you are trustworthy. You have a good history of contributions and will almost certainly use the tools well. Camaron | Chris (talk) 21:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support- I am fully confident that you will do a good job. I have reviewed a number of your interactions with users and find you to be calm and not easily provoked. The comparison with TNN is inane. I appreciate your acknowledgment of possible COI issues and your understanding that there is a time to step away. Good Luck! JodyB talk 21:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support Yay! Eusebeus (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support Able to deal with contention without loosing his cool. Solid editing history, no serious issues raised by disgruntled users. Even those who have had differences of opinions with him, have come on board to support. Seems to be a perfect candidate. Tiamuttalk 00:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support Excellent user, knows what he's doing. I think he can be trusted with the tools. Definitely not someone likely to mess up. Chamal talk 12:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support - I can't think of anything novel to say when I'm this far down the list. - Richard Cavell (talk) 12:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support, yes please, I have seen lots of excellent work from sgeureka. Kusma (talk) 14:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support No qualms here, candidate has addressed concerns correctly, IMO. --Rodhullandemu 16:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - seen the candidate around the place many times before, often in a positive light. Caulde 20:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    See #26. - auburnpilot talk 21:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies about that; thanks AP. Caulde 22:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support - I don't think this user will destroy the wiki as a sysop. Xclamation point 22:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support - The pedia' won't catch on fire if he becomes a admin. Net positive. RockManQReview me 23:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support On the whole, Sgeureka seems well qualified to be an admin, both in need for the tools and trustworthiness. The concerns about closing fiction related AfDs is a fair concern, but DRV seems more than adaquate to address such concerns. I don't think Sgeureka would be tenacious in continuing to close AfDs in a certain area should DRV reverse them one after the other. -- Suntag ☼ 02:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support Towards the top end of smart and clue. Opps are a bit Chicken Licken IMO Plutonium27 (talk) 02:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's funny you say that. Fur diejenigen was das bedeutet die nicht wissen, sollten Sie den Artikel lesen vor Sgeureka oder seine Freunde es sehen. --Pixelface (talk) 05:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In English, please. Plutonium27 (talk) 15:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well my German's not very good, but I'm sure Sgeureka could translate. I meant to say "For those of you who don't know what that means, you should read the article before Sgeureka or his friends see it." The The Sky Is Falling (fable) article doesn't conform to the policies and guidelines that Sgeureka likes to "enforce." So they best read it soon. --Pixelface (talk) 18:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If your German is 'not very good' why comment in it? Unless you are quoting - which, if you are, is not at all apparent. Neither, come to that, is your meaning. Must we really put ourselves through the tl;dr Talk Page magnum opus to unravel this particular cryptology or is there a simple explanation that can go right here? Ta. Plutonium27 (talk) 15:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support. You look like a generally good editor that could utilize the admin tools. K50 Dude the GreatTalk to me!Look at me!
  69. Support – Seems like a fine editor to me—has shown s/he knows and understands Wikipedia policy, is civil, and has shown that s/he could use the tools positively through his experience as a non-administrator. The opposes don't concern me a bit. Will make a fine administrator. – RyanCross (talk) 05:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support. The mop isn't a big deal; the core criteria should be competence, trustworthiness and willingness to engage in discussion, and Sgeureka has demonstrated these. Disappointed that so many of the opposes assume that someone's stance in an AfD is prima facie evidence that he can't be trusted to close one fairly, given ample evidence of fair AfD-participating admins on either side of the inclusionist/deletionist line. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support. Good contributions. Reasonable answers. Axl ¤ [Talk] 03:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support per Pixel's explanation on the talk page. --Izno (talk) 03:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support Quite frankly, I don't know what really gets Pixelface so annoyed about Sgeureka's transwiki of NN stuff from Wikipedia to Wikia, I frankly don't understand what is wrong with another project benefiting from content that will be otherwise deleted and would not consider calling it "leeching" (it should be noted that Pixelface's post on the talk page was tl;dr to me, although I did manage to pick up a few points from its opening). I must say, that from what I have read on the drama board, Pixelface seems to have large amounts of bias (and possibly COI?) when it comes to both Wikia and Fiction-related articles and thus, it don't believe that his/her points are entirely neutral or accurate. Sgeureka has been with the project for nearly two years, has accumulated over 20,000 edits and many, many contributions to the many areas of the project and will be a benefit and net positive to the administrator community. Also per my RfA criteria Foxy Loxy Pounce! 05:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support - I've known Sgeureka to be a rather fair editor, who is not afraid to speak their mind and disagree if the case calls for it (i.e. doesn't often fall victim to groupthink). The fact that Sgeureka promotes transwiking information has nothing to do with whether or not he will be a fair and impartial administrator. Every Administrator has their own personal views on some specific topic on Wikipedia that does not always mesh with what others believe, that is not something new or something that will ever go away. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and they are encouraged to share it (even Admins). The question should be, "Would Sgeureka be able to put his personal opinion aside in a RfC, AfD, etc and perform the correct action based on the consensus of the page?" Personally, I believe that he can and will.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support Why not, no big deal, Wikipedia needs more admins, I don't give a fuck etc.--intraining Jack In 05:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Excellent candidate; clearly knows what he's doing. Flowerparty☀ 07:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support Good user :) abf /talk to me/ 10:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support per compelling argument given by Pixelface. If you TLDR'ed his argument on the talk page, you may have missed him describing Wikia as "Jimbo's fancruft mines," which is one of the funnier things I’ve read here in awhile. HiDrNick! 14:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support per positive personal interaction, a fine grasp of what makes for an encyclopedia, and the stirring recommendation by Pixelface.—Kww(talk) 14:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support this reasonable editor. Mop's no big deal. I consider fears of abuse to be unfounded. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support. Keeper ǀ 76 19:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support. His edit history and discussion threads are cogent and sensible, though I don;t agree with everything he's said and done. On balance he'll make a competent admin. Majoreditor (talk) 20:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support. Certainly he's been involved in some controversial things, and sometimes I don't entirely agree with his opinions. But I haven't run across anything (including in that lethal wall-of-text on the talk page) that leads me to believe he's acted in bad faith or otherwise in a way that undermines my trust in him. I think he'd make an excellent admin. ~ mazca t|c 21:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support. I see no problems with Sgeureka. DiverseMentality 21:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support per the opposes. Aunt Entropy (talk) 01:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  86. seresin ( ¡? )  01:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support, per Aunt Entropy. Hal peridol (talk) 03:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support!!! Sqeureka deserves to be an admin. Madadude (talk) 04:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support Looks good to me. faithless (speak) 20:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support as this editor has been making some good arguements for quite some time now. --Gavin Collins (talk) 21:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support - Garion96 (talk) 22:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support - No reason to believe Sgeureka will abuse the tools; everything I've seen is in good faith. – Alex43223 T | C | E 00:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose IMO sysoping Sgeureka would be akin to sysoping TTN. [6] RMHED (talk) 02:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I, for one, think both would be a net plus. Reyk YO! 02:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • While my views on quality are indeed very similar to TTN's, I have never edit-warred, and I will never edit-war to force my view of quality on other editors. TTN made the mistake to piss off so many editors that they'll oppose anything he suggests, no matter how good the end result would be. I, on the other hand, can get quality work done through being nice, being patient and through showing off my quality work and say "you can have the same if you are willing to collaborate". If I could reverse time, I'd encourage TTN to do the same to achieve quality, but it's too late for him now. – sgeureka t•c 03:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What you say may be correct. Fiction articles being as divisive as they currently are, need absolute neutrality from administrators, especially given the current absence of a specific Fiction guideline. I'm just not sure you could remain neutral if closing a fiction AfD or DRV. RMHED (talk) 03:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried to address my (non-)neutrality in regards to XfDs in Q1. DRV still intimidates me, so I won't do anything admin-like there anyway. – sgeureka t•c 03:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In the interests of fairness...
    Sgeureka: AfDs he started and articles he created versus
    TTN: AfDs he started and articles he created
    So, as of when I checked those tools, Sgeureka has created 149 pages versus 6 pages created by TTN. Sgeureka has nominated 25 articles for deletion (11 of which were outright deleted or 44%) versus 563 nominations by TTN (122 of which were outright deleted or 21.67%), which suggests that Sgeureka has done much more in the way of article creation and has much greater success with nominations. They have participated in over a hundred of the same discussions, but I do not think they were always exactly on the same side as Sgeureka seems more apt to argue for a merge or redirect than just outright deletion. I think a telling difference between the two is one like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weapons of Resident Evil 4 where TTN disregarded the improvements made during the discussion and dug in, whereas Sgeureka acknowledged the improvements and even complimented the rescuer (that alone is enough to make me almost want to reconsider opposing and switch to neutral or weak support). Nevertheless, we still seem to be on the opposite side of most discussions (see here) and I have seen a number of discussions closed by those of the deletionist leaning as delete for which there was clearly no consensus to delete, which is why I am hesitant to support, but at the same time, we should still be objective and as such I am not sure the comparison is entirely accurate here even if I do share some of the concerns. Anyway, I hope that helps. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 06:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Why on earth do people always oppose candidates with differing views on inclusion because "they might be biased on AFD"? We have DRV for bad closes, and any admin who consistently makes them will be steered gently away from AfD. Black Kite 09:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We would rather avoid having to go to DRVs for bad closes. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) The notion that any administrator could have "absolute neutrality" is laughable. Any person that has gotten to a RfA has fairly strong opinions in regards to inclusion. In any case, I don't see anything that would prevent him from correctly gauging consensus, which I don't believe his views on inclusion will impinge upon. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 03:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose, I do not trust this user enough to be certain of him being a net asset to the admin team. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 09:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a specific reason for this mistrust?---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 16:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose as too biased with regards to content inclusion to trust with closing certain articles for deletion. Unless if the candidate pledges to not close any fiction related AfDs, which even I would do were I ever to run for adminship (really unlikely...), I cannot support, but might reconsider per some pleasant experiences in the past. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose I do not trust in your ability to correctly close AFDs. SashaNein (talk) 13:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong Oppose now, per Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Sgeureka#Detailed oppose by Pixelface, which shows me that this move will absolutely not be a net gain for Wikipedia. Congrats on getting the tools, though. It's going to cause headaches for thousands of those troublesome 'article creators' due to your TTN-like interpretations of disputed guidelines and completely nonsensical blurbs about 'wiki-notability'. I am not looking forward to this at all. SashaNein (talk) 18:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Opppose, another Wikia tool editor. We're here to write an encyclopedia and give free information to everyone, not enrich Wikia, Inc or Jimbo Sylvester McMonkey McBean. Some Sneetches don't care about stars on their bellies. We're here to volunteer and do the best we can, not to quote Steve Smithson Scott because he took The Bible or the Dungeon Master's Guide off the shelf and scribbled in it. --Pixelface (talk) 00:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Pixelface, you know I generally agree with you and like you for many reasons, but can I persuade you to strike "tool"? Best, --A NobodyMy talk 00:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've struck that word, but I've left a detailed comment (much too long for here) on the talk page. --Pixelface (talk) 05:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I would rather we keep the moral high ground. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 16:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Since some people have said my talk page comment is tl;dr and some want an "executive summary", I think the strongest evidence of Sgeureka being unfit to be an administrator is (bolding mine): the fact that during Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters, where Sgeureka was listed as an involved party, he said if TTN was put under an editing restricting for one year "I volunteer to revert instead of him in those cases (the majority) where month(s)-long merge/redirect discussions resulted in nothing but WP:ILIKEIT votes without any article improvement." TTN was later placed under an editing restriction for half a year in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2. While TTN was restricted from redirecting TV character articles, TTN asked Sgeureka to redirect some for him. When TTN was restricted from merging TV character articles, Sgeureka said "TTN can in fact merge all he wants, he just can't merge&redirect", misunderstanding the ArbCom ruling. Sgeureka didn't start "cleaning up" Stargate SG-1 articles until after E&C1 opened. And that was after he said "Out of interest, I tested whether TTN asks for too much, with an average episode of Stargate SG-1 (almost none of their articles establish notability at the moment)..." He told WikiProject Stargate "In the end, resistance is futile when you don't have guidelines and policies covering your six..." Sgeureka's edits to Stargate SG-1 articles were described by Garda40 as "death by a thousand cuts." In November 2007, Sgeureka said "It can also be argued that the article creators waste everyone's time, as they don't realize that (in most cases) they are not improving the project by adding poorly formatted episode articles that violate WP:PLOT, WP:TRIVIA, WP:QUOTE and WP:NOTABILITY without hope for change." In January, Sgeureka insisted on merging Firefly character articles after there was no consensus to do so. During E&C1, Sgeureka said "there are about a dozen dedicated editors upholding fiction policies and guidelines against a number of hundreds and thousands of editors who have never seen a policy or guideline." Wikipedia is not a totalitarian regime. And finally, Sgeureka is an editor on Stargate Wikia, which I would consider a conflict of interest for a potential Wikipedia admin involved in reducing Wikipedia's coverage of Stargate SG-1. --Pixelface (talk) 17:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Per past experience at AFD and role in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2. Catchpole (talk) 21:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose Role in Episodes and Characters 2 clearly shows that this user is not to be trusted with the buttons. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. This RfA seems to be passing smoothly, but I'd register my oppose anyway. My direct interactions with Sgeureka suggest this user is not suited for the admin position. Sgeureka engaged in a proposal and argued there was consensus with 8 for vs. 7 against that proposal, then because the debate wasn't going in the way s/he liked, Sgeureka stormed off in the middle of the discussion claiming: "Well, as my good advice here seems to fall on deaf ears, there's nothing left to say but goodbye." I'm not discussing whether his/her opinion was right or wrong, but this is a sign of lack of good-faith assumption on other editors, inadequate patience to follow with constructive discussion, as well as questionable temperament and judgment.
    (As a side note, the eventual conclusion of the above cited discussion did come against Sgeureka's self-claimed "good advice".) --PeaceNT (talk) 11:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Stronger oppose per pixelface's detailed comment on talk page. I did not read everything, but generally agreed with most of what I've read there.--PeaceNT (talk) 11:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose - Pixelface seems to say it better than I ever could - we're here to build an encyclopaedia, both general and specialist in nature. Those who're unlikely to be assets to this task in administrative roles should not be made administrators. WilyD 19:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you elaborate how I am not building the encyclopedia, both general and specialist in nature? I thought creating Featured Topics (that can't be expanded) was the definition of building the encyclopedia. – sgeureka t•c 15:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. — CharlotteWebb 19:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose - Hearts in the right place, but has trouble with compromise and consensus. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose per candidate's reply to second question from Deacon of P above. Recusing himself because some might see him as biased… because he is German? This is worse than Wehwalt's undertaking to take no administrative action in I-P areas, above, which at least went back to actual behavior. Here, sgeureka is backing away based solely on his citizenship, something he has no control over. I want to shout at him, Have some gumption! If anyone gives you trouble just because you're a German send them to me and I'll sort 'em out! Too bad because I read the Supports and they are well stated.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 01:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Seeing how many people opposed because they feared I may abuse the tools because of possible COI issues, I am somewhat surprised that people want me to act in sitations where I know that people see me as having clear COI (although I actually don't, but nationalist trolls will vehemently disagree, see Q3). – sgeureka t•c 15:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I also found this an odd reason to oppose. In order to stick, controversial decisions sometimes need to be made by people who both are unbiased, but also appear unbiased to all the parties in the dispute. For an example, I'm English. While I honestly don't really care either way on a lot of the Ireland article-naming debates we're having at the moment, were I to close a controversial requested move I'd probably expect someone to claim I had a non-neutral view of the situation by virtue of my nationality. They'd probably be wrong, but it would undermine the consensus anyway, so I don't think it would be worth doing. ~ mazca t|c 21:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose per Pixelface's more detailed comment on the talk page. This seems like very serious business to me. Sgeureka appears to be systematically engaged in moving WP content to a for-profit project and then having the work of the original authors deleted here. The suggestion of tag-team editing with TTN is also disturbing. I must strongly question the judgment of this would-be (and looking to be likely) administrator. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 16:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't really understand this reasoning. (1) To quote wikipedia's article about the GFDL, "The GNU Free Documentation License [gives] readers the rights to copy, redistribute and modify a work and requires all copies and derivatives to be available under the same license. Copies may also be sold commercially,...", so my transkwiking to for-profit projects isn't anything that wikipedia doesn't encourage in the first place. (2) Ignoring for a moment that I haven't transwikied anything to the SG wikia since July 2008,[7] I am unsure if you're suggesting that I should just remove inappropropriate (WP:FICT, WP:WAF) content from wikipedia without a transwiki from now on. (3) Please check Pixelface's "proof"-diffs of my alleged tag-teaming with TTN before taking his accusations seriously (one actually proves PF's edit warring on a policy page, the other is an ANI thread about PF). – sgeureka t•c 23:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You're copying material to Wikia but also removing that material from Wikipedia. So it goes from not generating a profit for Jimmy Wales, to profitable for Jimmy Wales. During E&C1 you said you'd volunteer to revert instead of TTN if he was placed under editing restrictions. When TTN was restricted from redirecting any TV character articles and he asked you to do it for him, you replied "I'll see how much I can do without a bad conscience or risking accusations that either you or I are violating the arbcom injunction." I have been discussing WP:PLOT at WT:NOT since January, and I have removed it several times since March, but I am not the only editor who has removed it. I don't think I provided any links to any ANI threads about me, but in case anyone is interested, there is this one started by Masem, who stated in his RFA during E&C1 that he believes TTN's ultimate goal is correct. No action was taken against me. And there is this one from January, which led John254 to include me in E&C2, but I was found to not be edit-warring on episode articles. --Pixelface (talk) 00:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Wow, I've seen some verbose opposes before, but never quite to what I've seen on the talk page. I couldn't read it all, but I did read enough that I now have concerns. Oppose.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 01:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I provided a short summary above at oppose #5. --Pixelface (talk) 01:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I saw the readerdigest version.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 02:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose per Pixelface. Leujohn (talk) 11:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose Too factional. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Strong oppose Why is often the mark of a "good potential administrator" how much that editor deletes other people's contributions? Why do so many wikipedians revere such conduct? An editor who calls editors' contibutions "tons of new crappy articles"[8] shows how much that editor respects not only the other editors contributions, but the editor's themselves. This editor should not be an administrator, let alone an arbitrator.Inclusionist (talk) 00:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose. I'm afraid on consideration I feel unable to trust that the editor would interpret consensus appropriately. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Strong opppose - per this talk page. I strongly encourage people to read the fully text of that. - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 01:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Neutral, concerns expressed in the opposes give me pause. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral While I know Sgeureka makes good contributions, his views on fictional articles are controversial and I cannot honestly say that I trust him not to use the tools to "win" disputes in such cases. I won't oppose because of that though. SoWhy 10:08, 9 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Sgeureka&oldid=1164500474"