Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Stifle

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.

Stifle

Final (65/2/3) ended 11:55,, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Stifle (talk · contribs) – Stifle has made 8000 edits since 2005-10-06. He is an expert in AFD and I think he has an excellent grasp of deletion and other policy. The count of his edits to Talk: namespace pages is admittedly low, but he has plenty of interaction on User_talk: and Wikipedia: pages (AFD pages are pretty much content discussion pages). Stifle does great cleanup work, is unlikely to abuse admin tools, and would benefit from having access to admin tools. —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-28 05:58Z

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly accept and thank Quarl for the nomination. Stifle 11:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support, as nominator —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-28 06:03Z
  2. Support, I second what Quarl says. --kingboyk 13:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Slightly on the deletionist side but as long as he keeps his and the community's opinions seperate, it would be fine. Tintin (talk) 13:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support --Terence Ong 13:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Shows a firm desire to help keep the Wiki clean. PJM 13:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support per Tintin. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. Good, responsible and sensible contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support - looks like an excellent admin to me. Essexmutant 14:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support with a traditional, "You mean he's not one already?" Ifnord 15:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support: --Bhadani 15:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support All in 16:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support, 1700 edits in the main namespace over five months is plenty. I also agree with Tintin: be sure to follow the consensus even when you might disagree. --ZsinjTalk 16:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support as per my guidelines. Is often a great asset in AfD discussions, and as such shows an understanding of policy, which is the real issue with Adminship. Batmanand | Talk 16:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. +sj + 19:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. A glance at the candidate's contribs stifles any thought of opposition. —Encephalon 20:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support, good edit summary use, need more deletionist admins. Hail CSD#A7. — Feb. 28, '06 [20:44] <freakofnurxture|talk>
  17. Support Naconkantari e|t||c|m 21:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Robert 23:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support --Latinus 00:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. I've made my mind up ;) NSLE (T+C) at 00:26 UTC (2006-03-1)
  21. Support - I have had good first hand experiences with this chap on AfD.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support he's a good editor. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 02:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Joe I 04:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Weak Support He has so many edits to his name so should have enough experience of Wiki but I think Stifle focuses a bit too much on AFD. DaGizzaChat © 06:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. Nobody used to care about contributions in this space, that space and and that talk space. Damn you Interiot, you've created a monster! Oh yeah, that Stifle, he knows AfD like the back of his hand and will make a great admin. Proto||type 10:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. 1700+ edits to article namespace is enough for anyone, his experience in AFD without report of uncivil or incorrect behaviour shows he has qualities needed for a good admin. Shame about being so deletionist ;-) |→ Spaully°τ 11:46, 1 March 2006
  27. Support. Perfect candidate for the mop. --Malthusian (21!) (talk) 11:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. Yes, seems to be an excellent candidate. Marskell 12:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 13:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support as per Quarl —-- That Guy, From That Show! (talk) 2006-03-01 14:08Z
  31. Support youngamerican (talk) 14:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support: Every interaction I have had with him was polite; in my experience he is competent, not prone to off-the-cuff judgement, disciplined, and courteous. Just what we need weilding the mop and flamethrower. Good Luck. -- Avi 16:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. I've been impressed during interactions on AFD. -Colin Kimbrell 18:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. Sounds like a great candidate. Good answers to questions; no bad behaviors to speak of. I'm neutral on his deletionist tendencies, it should not be a factor in adminship unless it leads to abuse, which is clearly not the case here. --Cymsdale 19:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. Seems like a good candidate. Jayjg (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. Answers to the questions are sound, certainly knows specifics of afd and his total edit history is good. Don't see him abusing tools.--Dakota ~ ° 19:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. Looks good. I doubt he will abuse adminship. --Krashlandon (e) 21:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support--Jusjih 01:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. —Kirill Lokshin 01:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. I made a mental note to oppose, but I couldn't remember why. After a quick skim through his contribs, it looks like it was something to do with being too delete-happy or not understanding the CSD. However, his more recent contribs show that his understanding improved leaps and bounds since I last noticed him, and it really wouldn't be very nice to oppose him. I am a bit concerned that he's too delete-happy, however, and would like him to lay off closing AfDs or speedying stuff for a few weeks, just to let those terrible admin hormones work on the transformation before he jumps in with both feet. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Will do. Thanks for your support. Stifle 15:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support, frequently see this solid editor with a similar opinion to mine in AfD's, works for me. Deiz 02:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support, I especially like his "Delete unless cleaned up" policy in AFD. Very active contributor. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 02:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Nonsense. An article that hasn't been expanded certainly does not qualify it for deletion. In my current projects, the only factor contributing to the lack aricle elabortion is laziness. Editors might not see the article(s) as interesting or worth their time. "When in doubt, don't delete". We didn't reach 1,000, 000 articles with silly attitudes such as that. -ZeroTalk 21:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support per Quarl. Mangojuice 07:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Great cleanup work. OhNoitsJamieTalk 16:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. Good guy. -- Krash (Talk) 17:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. Of course! Computerjoe 19:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. Thanks for being fair! +Johnson542 22:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Yes --Jaranda wat's sup 21:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support per Ifnord. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. My name is John Bambenek and I support this candidate. -- Jbamb 04:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support, good candidate. Kusma (討論) 05:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. I met User:Stifle on AfD when he (it's a he, right?) hit me over the head with some faux pas I'd made in one of my votes. I wanted to strangle him, but he was right![1] Happy to support. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 07:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    (-: (yup, I'm a guy) Stifle 09:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support gets my support, good luck to you. Gryffindor 14:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Strong Support Great work on AfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support doN't belieVe in CensOrshIp 18:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support everything appears to be in order. good luck.--Alhutch 20:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support Mjal 21:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support Prodego talk 15:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support good editor --rogerd 03:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Irish stub-sorting cliqueish support. Alai 05:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support. A good user who will use the tools well. Raven4x4x 06:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support. — FireFox • T • 21:34, 5 March 2006
  65. Support. --Ugur Basak 10:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support - no problems with me. --Ixfd64 04:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose. Stifle's activity in project-space seems to consist almost entirely of deletion. If you consider deletion to be in Talk space instead of project space, then activity in Talk space consists almost entirely of deletion, too. Such a focus on deletion makes me uneasy, as I feel it would give someone a skewed perspective on the project. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose, however I might support if user decides to withdraw unfair deletion OR if a VALID reason is given for deletion. Stifle seems to focus on deletion, and deleted a page I posted that passed three notability tests (two more than required), but the decision is still pending). +Johnson542 10:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose: Since this Demilich (band) situation has swung the other way into a second Afd for whatever reason without proper deletion review, I'll vote oppose. This is a blatant end-run around the clear process and subverts the whole purpose of Afd and WP:DRV and is very un-admin like. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we might have run into a misunderstanding. I have only now become aware that the article is listed on DRV. It was, in fact, recreated whilst on DRV by Johnson542. Stifle 15:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless of when it was listed on DRV, it was never approved on DRV. Unless someone wants to point out the error in my thinking, if an article has gone through a proper Afd and was unanimously deleted (with two people wishing it could be speedied), it should not be recreated until after a DRV process. Correct? This was circumvented and DRV was thereby made irrelevant. We might as well get rid of DRV altogether if this is going to happen and then Afd becomes far more trouble than it's worth because any one person can just wait until it's over and then re-create the page. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm confused. This seems less of a fault on Stifle and more on the person who recreated the page while it was in DRV. Listing an article on AfD while it is under DRV could be a simple error. --Cymsdale 17:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I'll remove my oppose vote since Stifle has made a good attempt at explaining the situation. I still believe the whole deletion process sucks but that's not his/her fault. How an entire Afd can be undone by someone simply re-creating the article is beyond me - but, since now people are coming out of the woodwork to reinstate it, I guess everyone wins in the end. (It's only been 4 weeks since I originally nominated so I'm not sure where all these supporters came from - but if everyone likes it now, fantastic). —Wknight94 (talk) 18:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It is my fauly for posting it in the DRV, because I was trying to comply with wknight94. I did not inform Stifle that I was DRVing it (im new to this whole process) and I would like to follow the AfD process (because the page was deleted without weighing the evidence in the first place. Everyone seems to like it now, and I am withdrawing my oppose vote for Stifles admin status, because he was very fair as soon as I received further support and came forth with evidence. I support Stifles decisions and not wknight94 because wknight94 does not even acknowledge the new evidence. Thanks, +Johnson542 22:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong Oppose - Seems to be totally into deletion. Only 1700+ edits on main namespace out of a total of 7800+ edits (i.e. < 25%) and answer to Q.2 have led me to this. WP:ENC, right? I have never interacted with him before and I ran into him due to this where he says whatever hell it is. I do not expect people to vote, without even looking at the associated articles. Voting on AFDs, without even looking at the article and the external links, may help one in gaining editcount but not in building an encyclopedia, imho. In another associated aticle for deletion, he makes a passing comment to WP:BIO, but doesn't mention why and how it violates that. Writing an article is a labour of love and if we are here to build an encyclopedia, we are to co-operate in developing article content rather than deleting it. Unless one is a good editor, it is very difficult to become a good admin. I vote "oppose" very few times and this is probably the first time I am voting "strong oppose." A better safe than sorry vote. --Gurubrahma 17:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your opinion. Please see also my reply to question #4 below. I'm not sure I agree that "[u]nless one is a good editor, it is very difficult to become a good admin", but I totally respect your opinion. Let me ask you this: if I had 1700 mainspace edits out of 3000, would you support me then? Stifle 23:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it is a hypothetical question. Even then, if I came across a diff like the above that I provided, I would vote oppose. My concern was with that diff and my comments about your overall activity are what I gathered from that single diff and your contributions around the same time. Please note the fact that there was no time lag between each of your delete votes. If you had atleast googled for the personalities, you would have known the extent of their achievements. It shows me that you are a delete trigger-happy admin material. Also, the two related articles were nominated for afd by a person who is relatively new and who was guided very recently by you on how to tag a copyvio. Knowing this, you should have atleast looked at his afd noms in depth. In fact, I am more impressed with him because he withdrew his noms as soon as he saw my improvements. You have not re-considered your votes and I doubt if you have even seen the diff, because you have not responded about my observation above on that diff. I also have concerns that you are gaming the system. You had 100% edit summary usage before the nom according to mathbot. However, after nom, your delete votes lacked edit summaries - I, for, one believe that edit summaries are must in all namespaces of WP. Also, this is what I would have done if I were in your position and had I got an oppose vote as above:- I would have looked at the notability or lack of it of the persons in the two articles, then either support the noms (i.e. reiterate deletion) or oppose (i.e. change vote to keep) the nom with arguments, and if convinced of the notability, I myself would have expanded the articles (please note that James A. Champy was not expanded to the same level as Michael Hammer, as I wanted to demonstrate that both are notable and can be expanded). Also, an admin should know the areas that WP is weak in and strive to help in those areas, if he can. Coverage in the media about Wikipedia is good with respect to sciences but not so with respect to Business - thus articles related to these should be improved rather than deleted. Also, considering that one of these articles was started by a n00b and that the article is about a notable personality, expansion would result in his happiness, deletion would result in BITE. Considering these facts and that you have been active only in one area and that you have been young on WP led me to the vote. Sorry for the longish response. --Gurubrahma 14:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral until I make my mind up :P NSLE (T+C) at 12:01 UTC (2006-02-28)
  1. Neutral. and I have made up my mind :) pschemp | talk 05:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral active in stub sorting and somewhat of a deletionist on AfD. Persoanlly, I'd like to see more positive article editing. Dlyons493 Talk 20:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your opinion. While I feel myself that my RFA is not praise or condemnation of my editing skills, but an evaluation of my likelihood to use admin rights appropriately, I completely respect what you say. Stifle 21:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Who says "good editors" actually make "good administrators" anyway. I would prefer not to personally attack any particular individual by citing counter-examples to this school of thought, but merely propose this as something worth considering. — Mar. 2, '06 [15:21] <freakofnurxture|talk>
  3. Neutral for now, due to lack of edits. I'd love to see more non-smoking Irish metric system advocates contributing to Wikipedia. But Stifle has hardly written anything in the mainspace, not even the (much-needed) Irish railway station project he mentions on his userpage. His high edit count consists largely of stub sorts and deletion votes (note that Stifle added himself to the 7,500 category in List of non-admins with high edit counts before he had reached that number [2]). I cannot support an RfA, no matter what the edit count, without significant contributions to articles; I'm perhaps more surprised that this is Stifle's weak point, as he seems to be an interesting and knowledgeable person. ProhibitOnions 11:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your message. I note that I was counting deleted edits, whereas you were not, in the WP:NA; neither of us is necessarily wrong. I also would like to refer you to freakofnurture's comment above and my reply to my own Question #4 below. Stifle 23:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A. I would continue my current focus on new page patrolling (as opposed to RC patrolling; NP patrolling is very necessary too) with the ability to speedily delete the obvious nn-bios and test pages. I would also focus on images with unknown or unsure copyright status, and on CAT:CSD, which has had a backlog of up to 24 hours recently. WP:RFPP would be an important place for me to stop by.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I admit that I have been somewhat more dedicated to what gets removed from rather than added to Wikipedia. I am generally involved in WP:AFD and WP:WPSS, and clearing out [[Category:Stubs]] is one of my favourite activities.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A. I have been involved in very few content conflicts. The decision of what article to place at The Nation frustrated me due to my interpretation of systemic bias; no consensus was reached in the discussion either. Also, I was rather stressed by User:Jason Gastrich for reasons best described in his RFAr. I don't feel that getting worked up over a Wikipedia disagreement is the right way to go, and prefer to invoke WP:COOL and go and have a good cup of tea first. I don't see this changing in the future - you can only have a shouting match with two or more participants and if one person refuses to play, the other just looks silly.
4. I anticipate this question, so I may as well answer it now :) You seem to have a disproportionate amount of edits to the Wikipedia namespace as opposed to the article and Talk namespaces. Are you more a career bureaucrat than a Wikipedian?
A. Beware of m:Editcountitis :) I've added quite a bit to the main namespace; I tend to find that most of the articles that I would like to write already exist and I can just improve upon them. Remember that RFA is not praise or condemnation of my editing skills, but an evaluation of my likelihood to use admin rights appropriately.
5. What areas of Wikipedia-space do you work on besides deletion? I can't find anything else by looking at your contributions, and such a narrow focus worries me. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 01:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A. I admit that significant portions of my project-space contributions are on ?FD, but I have also worked on some policy proposals and Wikipedia essays, including Wikipedia:Listcruft. AFD is more like a talk section than project space anyway, in my opinion.

If you would like to add a question, please feel free. Questions from NSLE:
The following are hypothetical situations you might find yourself in. I'd like to know how you'd react, as this may sway my vote. There is no need to answer these questions if you don't feel like it, that's fine with me, (especially if I've already supported you ;)).

  1. You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?
    I would email the user (avoiding talk page systems) to present my concerns and request that xe cease using socks. Should compliance not arise, then I would consider blocking the sockpuppet accounts quietly while avoiding connecting to the original editor. Only if disruption (or new socks) continued would I try taking action against the main account, most probably by a WP:RFC.
  2. While speedying articles/clearing a backlog at CAT:CSD, you come across an article that many users agree is patent nonsense. A small minority, of, say, three or four disagree. Upon looking the article over, you side with the minority and feel that the article is salvagable. Another admin then speedies it while you are making your decision. What would you do?
    I would contact the other admin on xyr talk page and ask xem to reconsider. If xe maintains the original decision, I would use DRV. No need for wheel wars, eh?
  3. When closing out a certain minor WP:AFD, you realise that there is a suspicion of sockpuppetry by a well-known user, or even an admin. Upon approaching the editor, he denies it, but the clues he leaves are too obvious to ignore. His sockpuppet vote did not affect the outcome of the AFD, but what would you do? Would you call him out?
    My answer to this is pretty much the same as to #1.
The above 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/Stifle&oldid=1140255258"