Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Steve

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Steve

Final: 115/0/0 Ended 09:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

Steve (talk · contribs) – It is my great pleasure to present Steve for your consideration. In my frequent observations of and interactions with Steve, I have found him to be exceedingly polite and helpful to everyone he works with. He also acts with careful consideration. Hence, his work is unfailingly grounded in civility and thoughtfulness. This fact alone makes him an ideal recipient of the tools—I have no doubt Steve will use them carefully and wisely. Further, Steve displays expertise in policies and guidelines, and his content contributions are top-notch. He currently has over 13,000 edits. He contributes heavily to the content-building process, provided much-valued reviews and even writing a Featured Article, proving his dedication to building this encyclopedia. His contributions span the entire site, including policy pages, peer reviews, templates, images, helpful participation at ANI designed to defuse conflict, thoughtful comments at AfD, and too many more to mention.

Steve has always been here to build an encyclopedia and he's a damned nice guy. Let's equip him to help out even further. Andy Walsh (Laser brain) (talk) 16:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nom from SandyGeorgia: Steve has a long history of quality contributions to FAC reviews and excellent article work (particularly in the Film area), but his calm and polite disposition, thoroughness, and knowledge of policy really caught my eye during the Aaron Sorkin Featured article review, where Steve helped calm an escalating situation at AN/I after I posted to the BLP noticeboard. Steve is one of the many solid, thorough and conscientous reviewers of Featured articles and contributors to quality articles, but it is his polite and conscientous character and good nature that will make him a fine admin. He is an editor I can always call on when difficult issues arise. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept! Many thanks to Andy and Sandy for their faith in my ability not to screw things up; Sandy has badgered me long enough, and I didn't have a good excuse this time. :-) I guess some of you will want to know a little about me, while others will think there's quite enough navel-gazing around here thank-you-very-much and will just want me to get on with it—so I'll keep this short. I'm 31, with a background in mechanical engineering, design and technical writing. On Wikipedia, my major contributions have been to film articles, though like most of us I occasionally branch out to subjects that catch my passing fancy. I'm unused to blowing my own trumpet, so I apologise in advance if I say anything insincerely humble or make you sick through blatant self-aggrandisement. No hard feelings if you think I'm unsuited for the role, and I'll try not to badger the opposers. Fire at will. Steve T • C 08:34, 4 August 2009 (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: Admin for hire. I'm not going to pretend that I'll spend all my days at WP:AIV, WP:CSD and WP:AFD; what I will do is try to show up where a level-headed administrator is most required. Sometimes it'll be at the aforementioned pages, sometimes through a talk page or noticeboard request, and sometimes because I'm asked (and should this be successful, please do). I'll also keep an eye on the more traditionally backlogged pages to see what turns up. I'm happy to disclose that this nomination is in part intended to help me as well as the project; Wikipedia is a great hobby, but even so a certain ennui will set in eventually—one of the reasons I migrated to WP:FAC in a big way. I won't be giving up article-building or reviewing—perhaps only 10–20% of my time will be consciously put aside for administrative duties—but it will present a new challenge that I think I'm capable of meeting. I'm told I'm reasonably clueful about our policies and guidelines; I guess an example of that would be my contributions at WP:AFD, where in 93 out of 99 AfDs the closing admin has concurred with my !vote. The others were mostly "no consensus" closes, and only twice has the decision gone explicitly against my position—naturally, I still disagree with those! Areas that I'm less familiar with needn't worry you; I always read the instruction manual first. :-) Editors who know me know that defusing DRAMA will likely be key to my administrative actions. For those who don't know me, all you need to decide is whether I will be that level-headed administrator I talked about earlier, and whether my being given the tools will be a net gain to the project.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: On the audited content side, the most obvious is the FA, which I'm reasonably pleased with despite its being about a film that will be considered marginal when the director's career is evaluated. Though I began improving it on a whim, the experience gained from its development is something I've been able to apply to other articles, most recently in collaboration at American Beauty (work-in-progress!) Through Wikiproject Films I've also added significant material to other articles that have gone on achieve good and featured article status (but which I would not claim as my own). As noted above, I've made about 13,000 edits, 55% of which have been to the mainspace; most of these have gone to adding real-world encyclopedic material to our film content—sometimes troublesome articles that attract fancruft and trivia. Hundreds of books can be written about one film, but its Wikipedia article has the potential to be the finest single source of knowledge anywhere about the subject. I'm pleased to have contributed towards realising that potential.
My actual article creations are few; those I started from scratch came about mainly through exasperation that the article didn't already exist when looking for information. Behind the scenes, I can cite my ongoing participation at the Wikiproject Films talk page, where my contributions have helped to shape the improved article guidelines over the last couple of years, and where I think the other project members have come to trust and respect my opinions. I'm also pleased with the work I did (along with many other editors) promoting the notability guideline for future films. That might be contentious to some, but I wouldn't categorise myself as either inclusionist or deletionist (does anyone still do that?); instead, I like to consider where information will best serve the reader—someone we often forget when arguing about whether a subject "deserves" a stand-alone article or if the information will be better presented and understood in the wider context of a parent article. Some of my most noticeable contributions over the last six months have come at Wikipedia:Featured Article Candidates, where I believe my reviews have been genuinely valuable in helping others to produce the best work Wikipedia has to offer. Largely through my participation over there, I've also developed a reputation as a capable copyeditor, with numerous barnstars and talk page requests for assistance to that effect.
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: Anyone who's here long enough will run into conflict; how an editor defines and deals with that conflict defines the editor. Two stand out as having had the biggest impact on my editing and discussion philosophy:
Not long after I joined, I unwittingly became involved in a bizarre conflict at Michel Thomas, where an edit war had developed between a journalist who questioned Thomas' war record, and the subject's former private investigator. Their war was an epic battle that ranged across dozens of websites, through courts and even a reissue of Thomas' official biography. The disruption to the Wikipedia article lasted about three years; it would be overwhelmingly negative one day to virtually deifying the man the next. I dropped into the middle after checking out one of Thomas' language courses and somehow became an unofficial mediator to the dispute. I won't bore you with the details, but in the end almost all the debatable information was stripped from the article in favour of an uncontroversial, straightforward account of Thomas' life. The war was forced away from our pages, and we now have an article that is as stable as it has ever been, and maybe the best it can ever be while those behind the dispute continue to rail against each other. The article is small and not widely read, but I cite the incident because it taught me a lot about Wikipedia's bread and butter: the editors, and how best to manage those who might act in good faith, though not within our guidelines and policies; it's informed a lot of my behaviour and choices in discussions since. If it's at all telling, despite their almost polar opposite views of the article subject, both editors had kind words to say about me throughout and after. I think many of those with whom I've disagreed elsewhere can say similar things.
The other conflict that strongly affected my views was one in which I acted less harmoniously. I unwittingly angered the sockpuppet of a banned editor through what I thought was a considered, patient explanation of the verifiability policy. The result was an off-Wiki incitement to real-world harassment, to which I panicked and reacted badly. I was encouraged back, and it was at that point I learned not to take things quite so seriously; I don't think I've raised my CAPS in anger since. Heck, I even apologised to the guy.
Any others I can think of I'd classify as mere good-natured disagreements—even if the other involved editors might not. :-) When it comes to civility, to focus on the edit—not the editor—is as good a watchphrase as any.
Additional optional questions from Triplestop
4. Do you think "XOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXO" is an inappropriate username? Would you block?
A: No to both. At worst it might be inconvenient, but not actionable. The only circumstance in which I might treat this editor apart from anyone else would be if they didn't use a talk or user page signature link; given the name, it could be of use to drop a polite suggestion on the editor's talk page to suggest they include one. Even then, it's not a particularly difficult name to remember once read a couple of times.
5. A user commits highly offensive vandalism, however does it only once a week and blanks the warnings from their talk page. You notice this has been going on for months. What would you do?
A: The boring answer might be to say that—depending on the strength and source of the previous warnings—I'd warn the editor again in unequivocal terms that a block will occur if the edits happen again (this time keeping an eye on the account's contributions, unlike the others who left warnings). But screw it, you want to know how my temperament would adapt itself to the situation. This is one of those where it might pay to walk the fine line between assuming good faith and calling a spade a spade. There's a small chance that there are ... not entirely acceptable, but understandable reasons ... for the account's actions. For example, a family member who visits only once per week and edits from the same computer. I'm sure others could come up with more creative examples, but you get the idea. Now, given that this has been occurring for months, this is very unlikely, and does assume a certain lack of savvy on the part of the account owner, but given the possibility that he or she isn't completely to blame, I don't think it would ultimately harm the project to leave the editor one more personalised—not templated—message at a time when constructive edits are being made. I'd likely adopt a more conversational tone while still finding some way of wording the message to make it 100% clear that the edits are unacceptable and will result in blocks if they continue, while also advising the editor to take steps to ensure no-one else can make them. This gives the account owner the opportunity to resolve the situation at their end if they aren't directly responsible (while avoiding antagonising him or her), but also gives enough of an "out" that even if they were directly and consciously responsible, there's an implied opportunity to reform. It's no secret that I'm more likely to assume good faith than others, but that's less a reflection of any gullibility on my part, and more a preference for practical solutions with the best net result.
Additional optional questions from Graeme Bartlett
6. Looking at your uploads, what would an administrator do about File:I Have Tourette's but Tourette's Doesn't Have Me DVD cover.jpg old version from 12 dec 2008 20:46 and why? Also why would you not load a PD or free picture on to the Wikimedia commons?
A: I'll take a look at the image I uploaded later this evening, but on the Commons question... I wasn't sure what you were asking at first, as Wikimedia Commons does allow PD works, but I think I just twigged. :-) To clarify, are you essentially asking in what circumstances would I not be allowed to upload a PD work to Commons? The only answer I can think of right now is if the image isn't in the public domain in all the relevant territories, as what's PD in the US (where the servers are) might not necessarily be in the UK (where I am)—and vice versa.
On the Tourette's image, I felt like the answer should be more complicated than it actually is—which is why I left it a little while to see if anything else popped into my head before coming back here. In the end, all I really see is that we're technically hosting a non-free image that isn't in use in an article, despite its being largely the same as the one that is. I can't think of a particular reason why it might need to be kept that would override that (e.g. a need to keep the history), so it should be deleted. I'm content to admit to a comparative lack of familiarity with image content; it's one area I'd need to study before touching with a barge pole. (And if my reading of the situation is plain wrong, I'd be more than happy to hear from you on my talk page later on if you want to explain the particulars to me—whichever way you vote.)
Additional optional questions from ThaddeusB
7. What is your opinion about notability as it relates to the inclusion/exclusion of content on Wikipedia? That is, what do you think an ideal Wikipedia would look like in terms of content? Do you feel that anything the meets the general notability guidelines should be allowed (excluding what Wikipedia is not type articles), or do you feel that some things aren't notable even if they have been covered in depth by multiple reliable sources? Are there any types of articles that you feel are automatically notable; that is, worthy of inclusion just by being verifiable without direct proof of in depth coverage in multiple reliable sources? (To be clear, I am looking for your personal opinion, and hopefully an insight to the way you think, not a restatement of current policy.)
A: Personally, I'd like to see less emphasis placed on the GNG as an arbiter of the subjects that should have stand-alone articles. I wouldn't class myself as either "inclusionist" or "deletionist"; rather, I'd like to see a little more consideration of what's best for our readers. It's a situation I've come across quite frequently at Wikiproject Films, so let me see if I can rustle up an example for you ... OK, consider Jurassic Park IV—a film that hasn't been made and probably won't be. On the face of it, it satisfies WP:N; it has significant, reliable, independent coverage in sources spanning from the first serious mention of the project in 2001, all the way through to the present day (though there's an argument for the application of WP:NOT#NEWS here). However, because it's currently stuck in development hell there's no real scope for expansion beyond that. If an article for the film were to be created, it would remain little more than a three or four paragraph stub. And yet it still seems to scrape past the notability guideline, which is why we've seen several attempts over the years to create the article without consideration of the best placement of the material. In this case, and in many others (such as sequels and potential film adaptations of historical or fictional material), the best place is in the parent article, where that wider context will allow the subject to be better understood and valued. At Jurassic Park (franchise)#Jurassic Park IV, the framework of the franchise article is where the subject sits most comfortably and most conveniently for the reader, someone we often forget when arguing over whether a subject "deserves" its own article. In terms of what "an ideal Wikipedia would look like" that means I'd like to see more comprehensive parent articles (summary style permitting, of course) and more targeted redirects.

Additional optional question from Radiantenergy

8. How will you resolve editwarring and other disputes between editors in a very Controversial BLP article. As an Administrator how will you handle disputes between two groups of editors with different viewpoints.
A: I think that very much depends on the editors involved, their numbers, levels of experience and my judgement of their maturity, temperaments and likely responses to different stimuli. The primary concern is to prevent the short term disruption to the article; some situations might require no use of the tools, but a cessation of hostilities through force of will, maybe a newer user will require being made aware of our policies and guidelines, while for a more experienced editor a simple warning to remind them will do. For grouchier contributors, a lighter, more conversational, touch might even be required. In mind at all times should be the best way to defuse the DRAMA. Blocks can be antagonistic and may only serve to inflame the situation; the better option to cool things down where the reverts are coming thick and fast might be immediate protection—especially if it concerns a BLP. Encouraging talk page discussion instead of shallow edit summary-driven discourse is a given, pointing towards or helping to initiate one of the dispute resolution processes the next step.


General comments

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

Discussion

Support
  1. Support - seems like the ordinary, plain flavoured, unflappable type we need at the moment. Crafty (talk) 08:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, because you have the best name ever, oppose because you stole the username I wanted. :) Steve Crossin The clock is ticking.... 08:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Seems like a level-headed chap and (pending any drastic revelations of the type that seem to bedevil RfAs these days!) I see no reason why not. And who can say no to a pair of rhyming noms anyway! --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 09:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support a good candidate, although the username leaves something to be desired. --Stephen 09:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 10:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. No problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 10:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Pmlineditor  Talk 12:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. I have worked closely with Steve at WikiProject Films and its related articles, and he is exceedingly polite in his interactions with everyone. He weighs in at discussions with thoughtful opinions that never runs afoul of tl;dr, and he is a quick learner. He learned the ropes of being an editor of film articles, putting together the gold-standard FA Changeling, and I'm happy to be working with him on American Beauty. His move to WP:FAC shows a willingness to change things up, and even as he does so, he continues to make an impression in new quarters! I cannot foresee him misusing the tools, and if he somehow does, he will probably apologize profusely. ;) If there's anyone on Wikipedia that I've met and can trust to use the tools with a level head, it's him. —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. PeterSymonds (talk) 13:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support — No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 14:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose per tl;dr answers. Support for one of the most helpful and friendly editors on the project. Excellent nominations, as well. What's not to like? –Juliancolton | Talk 14:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support I have respect for anyone who works on articles. Shappy talk 14:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Good luck. America69 (talk) 14:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Either a sane person or a crazy person hiding his craziness so well that even he is fooled. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 14:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Has all the attributes I think an admin should have, he has experienced article work, seems trustworthy enough. Complete support. Woody (talk) 14:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Great article work, seems fine to me. LittleMountain5 15:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Obvious support. - Dank (push to talk) 15:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. Looks good. Dekimasuよ! 15:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Tan | 39 15:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support - sensible, given name username, rhyming Andy-and-Sandy nomination...anything more needed? Oh, OK: noms and answers to the questions show just what we need. Glad to support.  Frank  |  talk  15:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support clean block log and good FA reviewer. ϢereSpielChequers 15:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support, excellent editor. Ironholds (talk) 15:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Excellent editor and good track see no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support per nom, and per David Fuchs :-) J.delanoygabsadds 16:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. I can tell just from the writing style in his answers that he'll be great. Yes, my admin-dar really is that good. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support.looks good.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 16:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. Good contributions and trustworthy. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support While I sometimes am scared of wordy users since that can be an indication they are here more to talk than work, Steve's contributions to the featured process (as documented by Sandy), instill in me the confidence that he will perform appropriately as an admin. MBisanz talk 17:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. The admin corps can always use more Steves. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 17:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support That anyone even wishes the headaches that come with being an admin is amazing enough. I liked the responses to the answers and see no reason to keep the mop out of his hands. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 17:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Why not? -FASTILY (TALK) 18:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support For the reasons given by the nominators and based on a personal and pleasant experience while working with Steve on the review of a recently promoted featured article. Graham Colm Talk 18:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support I've always been impressed with Steve's insights at discussions at WP:FILM as well as his contributions to the FAC process. He should do well dealing with the tools in whichever areas he plans on focusing on. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35. An editor that has worked well in many parts of the encyclopedia and is able to handle conflicts by staying civil. Joe Chill (talk) 18:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  36. There's nothing that I can say that hasn't been said by those above me or by the nominators. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. Karanacs (talk) 18:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support I don't see anything to be alarmed of. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  39. (decloak)  – iridescent 19:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC) (recloak)[reply]
  40. Support Looks good to me.--Res2216firestar 19:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 20:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Doesn't appear to be any problems here. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 20:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. Looks good to me! -- Deville (Talk) 21:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support as unquestionably here to build an encyclopedia. Jclemens (talk) 22:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support, one of my usual overly-verbose rationales seems entirely unnecessary here. Great user. ~ mazca talk 22:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  46. I could have sworn he already was. Master&Expert (Talk) 22:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Excellent user with good judgment. Triplestop x3 00:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Will make a great admin. hmwithτ 00:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Strong Support - definitely! Airplaneman talk 01:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Strong support YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 02:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support—Here is an excellent candidate. I'm very glad he's putting himself forward. Tony (talk) 03:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support Good candidate in various aspects to be an asset for WikipediaCaspian blue 05:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Haven't really noticed this editor much but seems level headed and should become a good admin. Good luck :) Aaroncrick (talk) 07:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support Per many above. Pedro :  Chat  12:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support I can't think of any reason I would possibly want to oppose. Steve seems to be an ideal admin candidate, and it appears he'll pass with flying colours. I've never noticed him around the wiki, but a look through his contribs suggests that he's more than qualified for the role. We should have more admins like this. Firestorm Talk 14:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Yup. This candidate's contribution history makes good reading.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support I'm not seeing any good reason not to. Irbisgreif (talk) 15:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  58. One two three... 15:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support - Excellent user. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  60. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 18:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support, per mazca, world+dog  Chzz  ►  18:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support good content contributions; the trait I really want to see in an admin. Artichoker[talk] 21:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support, seems fine. Haven't seen him around but I trust what's written. Wizardman 21:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support - Great contributor, I personally see no reason to oppose. Until It Sleeps Wake me 21:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support No worries.--Giants27 (c|s) 02:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Strong Support – It is my honor to support Steve's candidacy for administrator. I've had the pleasure of collaborating with Steve on the Changeling (film) article. Steve has proven himself to be an excellent editor and writer in maturing this featured article along with many others. He writes amazingly quickly and clearly, and continually demonstrates an understanding of Wikipedia policy. He is a valued member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Films. Steve also has repeatedly shown that he has the temperament to be an administrator. He has a great record of tactfully dealing with less than stellar edits showing respect to the person while making it clear why the edit failed to improve the article. He also justly deals with people when they vandalize articles using the appropriate level of correction. --Dan Dassow (talk) 03:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support Yea for him. Hurrah!. --SkyWalker (talk) 05:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support - In good company. A solid editor with a very admirable sense of humility. I've seen himself correct his own mistakes, which speaks volumes. Shadowjams (talk) 10:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support - Well, he is clearly better than most of the candidates I've seen in a long time. So, yeah. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Clear Support - Steve has produced some of the most thoughtful answers I've seen on RfA, has a long history of contributing productively to the project, and has an excellent temperament. One of the easiest support votes I've made. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support per Fuchs. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support per Casliber. iMatthew talk at 21:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  73. I've seen Steve around at FAC and he seems to a sensible enough sort. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support – The work I've seen him do at FAC gives me confidence that he will make good use of the admin tools. Giants2008 (17–14) 23:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support No reason to believe he'd misuse the tools. Timmeh (review me) 00:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support – knowledgeable in many of the key content guidelines as evidenced by his work at FAC. Also, good answers to many of the questions. MuZemike 00:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Keeper | 76 04:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support per oppose. Plastikspork (talk) 04:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  79.  Support Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Steve. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 08:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support - I analyzed his edit, and there is nothing to worry about. AdjustShift (talk) 14:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support. Looks fully qualified. — Σxplicit 17:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support Mature, competent, good answers to the questions. See no reason to oppose. -- Ϫ 20:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support Erik9 (talk) 20:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support Absolutely. Plutonium27 (talk) 00:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support. I hardly ever take part at RfA, but an unrelated edit caught my eye, and this is a very impressive candidacy. Articulate and sensible answers to the questions. Carcharoth (talk) 01:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support per ThaddeusB. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  03:03 8 August, 2009 (UTC)
  87. Support Sceptre (talk) 03:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Brad has decided. So shall it be. Long live Brad. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 03:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support Don't let us down. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support on the strength of SandyGeorgia's co-nom. If she's willing to vouche for you then I am more than willing to support you. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support Very impressive article work, and always seems like a fair and thoughtful guy. Ceoil (talk) 11:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support. His name sounds familiar, but we really haven't crossed paths, so I barely knew anything about Steve upon seeing this RfA. However, his answers to questions, nice work and good attitude show that he's competent and quite suited for the duties of adminship. JamieS93 be kind to newcomers 13:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support per pretty much everything above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  94. A friendly, careful editor who is well-suited for adminship. ceranthor 22:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support. Clue aplenty! The encyclopedia will be logarithmically better for his adminship! ArakunemTalk 23:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support as per above Tiggerjay (talk) 04:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  97. There needs to be more administrators who are like Steve. —harej (talk) 08:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support. I think he is competant, he is able to make clear decisions on case by case basis. He has my full support. Radiantenergy (talk) 14:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support Good luck! Dean B (talk) 21:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support per Andy Walsh and SandyGeorgia. Great content contributions, especially Changeling (film), which I enjoyed reading. Theleftorium 21:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support Looks good. Your responses show copious helpings of WP:CLUE. --Chasingsol(talk) 21:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support demonstrated his carefulness and cluefulness in his answer to my question. (The answer about deleting the unused version of the fair use image was the correct one) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Grr. --Andy Walsh (talk) 22:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Daniel (talk) 02:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Oppose, you're overqualified. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
    In case anyone misses this, Lankiveil wrote in the edit summary for his vote: "(→Support: +1 (and yes, this is a support vote... at 105-0 I think a little silliness is allowed))"--Dan Dassow (talk) 11:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't worry about it, Dan. A bot will update the tally based on the numbers in the section, rather than the words used. No confusion can result that way. All the best, Steve T • C 11:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Unqualified support, and thanks for the feedback - Pointillist (talk) 12:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support - That was easy. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support Proud to support such a great candidate. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support as I see no evidence the tools would be abused. Seems well qualified for the twiddled bit. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Strong Support - This candidate is a very clear cut choice. His body of work is free of any controversy and is of the highest caliber. --Matheuler 18:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support Seems like an experienced hand...Modernist (talk) 23:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support Surely a pile-on at this stage. As "teh interwebs" would say, good editor is good. Fribbler (talk) 23:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support BrianY (talk) 02:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Strong SupportGreat answers to questions, user knows how to learn from mistakes, and will make a great admin. Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 04:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Strongest possible oppose. While he does have audited content work, they don't stand up to even minor inspection. Changeling, for instance, has a non-free image in it! Plus, Steve accepting the nomination is prima facie evidence he's power hungry. I expect this RfA to pass, but only because of heavy lobbying and canvassing, most likely over IRC. Finally: we have too many admins. I've made my case. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 11:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I assume the second and fourth bits are a joke? Either that or you're channelling DougsTech and Kurt Weber. Ironholds (talk) 12:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a complete and utter lie, David and you know it... Changeling has two non-free images! Steve T • C 12:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two non-free images! Well that just takes the biscuit - move for an immediate ban for Steve, and blocks for everyone at FAC for not noticing! Ironholds (talk) 13:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm frankly disappointed: I was trying to channel Damian with the first two sentences, then Kurt, then a dash of cabalism eau de Giano, then classic DougsTech. Clearly, I am too subtle and will have to work on it. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remember to include a trace of pig ignorance ("question 1 is bad, admins are required to stay at ANI when they are online") for that perfect oppose. Failure to include it leaves the oppose a little too al dente for my taste. Ironholds (talk) 13:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be considered serious allegations of canvassing really do need to be accompanied with evidence. However I'm not convinced that this oppose was meant to be taken seriously, especially as currently policy does allow some instances where copyrighted images such as the film poster referred to can be used under claims of fair use. ϢereSpielChequers 14:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's obviously a joke. :) –Juliancolton | Talk 14:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Party pooper !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
David Fuchs is joking. Ironholds and WereSpielChequers, why are you guys taking him seriously? AdjustShift (talk) 19:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe they're joking too. Why are you taking them so seriously? --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Floq, maybe AdjustShift was joking. Why are you taking him so seriously? --added by Floquenbeam, to save someone the typing effort. 19:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
etc.
etc.
I've stricken the number on this !vote. It's a serious matter to strike any good-faith !vote, but I feel comfortable doing so given the acknowledgement that the !vote was intended entirely humorously. I'd hate to see a candidate lose out on the possibility of unanimous support because of a joke. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC) [reply]
It doesn't seem to have worked. Perhaps that trick only works when there is something above it that isn't indented? (So that it can look like a reply.) I suspect the software will still think there is 1 oppose vote here, but we'll see soon enough. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 23:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. When indenting the first item in a list, you need to replace the hash with a colon. Hopefully this will work. But as an aside, unanimous RFA's are completely over-rated. Compare this and this... :-) Carcharoth (talk) 23:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All you chaps are way too antsy about a unanimous vote, I was gonna strike it of my own accord before the RfA's end anyhow... wouldn't deprive Steve of my own illustrious support. pshh. Patience means nothing to some people anymore... --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 03:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Evidently a superb editor and great contributor to the encyclopedia, but none of the 104 supporting votes so far has explained why it would be better for Steve to be an admin. Steve him/herself has never asked for this role, and I am worried that it is somehow being forced on him/her. - Pointillist (talk) 23:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he did accept the nomination. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'd feel easier if Steve would just outline – in the Neutral section – what s/he thinks are the key differences between a novice Admin vs a superb Editor. - Pointillist (talk) 01:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't possible to go from superb editor to novice admin, because by the time one (say Steve) becomes a superb editor, he will already be familiar with the blocking, deleting, and protecting policies and guidelines; once he becomes an admin, it only becomes a matter of doing what he already knows to do. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  04:13 10 August, 2009 (UTC)
Hi Pointillist, thanks for the comment; I'll try to clear a few things up (apologies in advance for the navel-gazing—you did ask!): My comment ("Sandy has badgered me long enough") was intended to be at least partially tongue-in-cheek; she has indeed asked several times, only to be met by replies from me that ran through plain refusal, evasion and pretending I didn't notice. :-) I've a few reasons for accepting this time: Sandy and Andy reckon I'll be a net gain to the admin pool, and even when turning previous offers down I've agreed (false modesty be screwed). Secondly, there's been a shift in my editing habits that made the move more justifiable to myself. As I touched on above, I'm happy to admit that I want this to help me as well as the project. It's a great hobby, but a certain ennui can set in after a while—perhaps why I drifted from Wikiproject Films over to WP:FAC. Since then, my content additions (rather than copyediting and gnoming) have probably gone back up. Even so, despite a couple of new articles in the last month or two, I'm still not as active in content areas as I used to be, so now seems a good time to accept a new role. The time I intend to consciously put aside for administrative tasks shouldn't interfere with the article work; by tempering the ennui, it might even lead to an increase. Again, thanks for the concern and the kind words. All the best, Steve T • C 08:56, 10 August 2009 (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/Steve&oldid=1144518741"