Wiki143:Requests for adminship/Sabine's Sunbird

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Sabine's Sunbird

Final (99/3/4); ended 07:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Script error: No such module "user". - I hereby nominate User:Sabine's Sunbird for adminship. He's been an active member of Wikiproject Birds (I was going to say the coordinator but I think we've all been on fairly equal footing there), which has yielded 22 Featured Articles in the past year or so. SS has nominated 4 Featured Articles himself. I nagged him to do this as he just asked me for Rollback rights. He has 1200 pages on his watchlist, and much of coordinating involves Moving and Renaming, as well as the frequent vandal-reversion which comes with a sizeable watchlist. I have found him thoughtful, helpful and cool-tempered and able to negotiate with others. Having been here since October 2004 I see no reason why Sabine's Sunbird should not be an admin. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

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 admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I don't actually think I'll be doing too much to start with. The ability to move pages to existing pages will be a massive help in helping with the ongoing project to sort out some of our confusing bird pages. I may also find it useful to semi-protect some high traffic pages on occasions. I watch a lot of pages (or it seems like a lot!) of all kinds. I'll put myself at the disposal of the various wikiprojects I help (New Zealand, birds, mammals, dinosaurs, etc) for any admin related tasks they might have.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I have to say my four featured articles. Okay, three and a half, because bird was a collaboration, albeit one that gave me repetitive strain injury. I've learnt a lot in the time I've been here about research, writing and collaborating and have been able to turn that into some articles that are considered amongst Wikipedia's best. The most important thing anyone can give this project is content, because that is what the millions of people that come to Wikipedia are looking for. I mean no disrespect to the many thousands of editors who contribute by fighting the hordes of barbarians (sorry, vandals) or who deal with policy and the like, but at the end of the day it is content that drives everything we do.
I'm also proud of my research. The one thing that gets my blood boiling on Wikipedia is the use of {{fact}} or {{cite}} tags, particularly when the citation being asked for is on the end of the next sentence. I appreciate without question the need for proper citations, but if I find a fact that needs citing I go off and try to cite it. Only if I fail do I flag it, or, more commonly, I pull it out of the text and place it in the talk page. I understand that citing is harder than simply throwing in a tag, but to me research is a massive part of my work here. I'd say I spend as much time reading journal articles, hunting through my university library and reading books and monographs for information as I do actually adding the info here. Perhaps more than half.
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: My approach to problems I have on Wikipedia is to try and endlessly negotiate. If I disagree with an edit I would rather ask an editor about it than simply change it back. It works! On a few occasions these discussions have spilled over onto email and gone on for weeks. I have, on occasions, been terse and snapped at people (I'm only human) but I have apologised afterwards. It is easy to forget that tone isn't carried well in text and it is easier to cause offence. If I've been unreasonable, or suspect I have, or if it is suggested that I am, it is important to apologise.

Optional Question from Jon513

4. Would you speedily delete a bird-related article that you, with your vast knowledge of birds, are certain is a hoax?
A.A vast knowledge of birds tells me that there are 10,000 species (Or less. Or more. It's complicated.) and I don't know them all. I would obviously delete an article speedily if it came under the criteria, particularly patent nonsense or vandalism. But there have been instances in the past where bird articles flagged to WP:BIRD's attention were simply uncommon names (often foreign) for existing species. Turning it into a redirects would be more appropriate in this situation, since we already have an article for every (almost) species. Or an article was given a common name when it had only been assigned a scientific one (as happens with some fossil birds). OR, for sure, but a move would be more appropriate. If there was any doubt in my mind that it wasn't simply a hoax (and they are usually easy to spot as vandals seldom show much creativity beyond "The Poopoo bird is a bird that lives in Timmy Bean's locker and poos lots") I'd do a lot of research and bring it to the attention of the rest of WP:BIRD rather than speedy it.
Optional questions from Malinaccier Public (talk)
5. In your opinion, should bans on the En-Wikipedia transfer over to the Simple English Wikipedia? Why or why not?
A.: I don't really feel I should say how sister projects that I don't participate in or have anything to do with, that is something that the people at Simple English Wikipedia should have a say in. Unless they ask me, and I notice you do edit over there, so I'll assume they have. Hmm. I guess it depends. Unrepentant vandals are already banned automaticaly over there (I looked) but rulebreakers aren't. It seems odd that if specific rules were broken here they won't be broken there, however it strikes me that particularly disruptive editors would probably be banned soon enough anyway.
6. Would you be willing to make "tough" blocks?
A.
Optional questions from Cameron
7 When should cool down blocks be used?
A. Never, according to policy. The reasons make sense too, being blocked is not going to lower your blood pressure. I think cool down periods are beneficial when you are angry however, but they can only be self enforced. When I get angry I'll walk away and do something else to calm down.
8 How do you interpret the policy of WP:IAR and the essay WP:SNOW and how would you apply them?
A. Wikipedia can be thought of as being torn between two goals, two bosses if you will. One is to be "the sum total of all knowledge" the other being the encyclopedia that "everyone can edit". The runaway success of the project can be attributed to the impressive coming together of two very different and seemingly contradictory ideas in a way is surprising, but the marriage is not without its problems and policies and guidelines help make the two ideas possible. There are times, however, when rigidly obeying rules can make for unproductive editors. WP:IAR is essentially a consequentialist counterbalance to the swathes of policy and guidelines, and it exists to remind everyone that the rules exist to serve the goals (knowledge) and means (everyone writes), not just so that they can be followed for themselves. Interpreting and applying WP:IAR should be done cautiously and with lashings of common sense, because while everyone is trying to "imporve the encyclopedia", not everyone has exactly the same idea of what an improved encyclopedia should look like.
Optional question from CharlotteWebb
9 When asked (above) what sort of admin work you intend to do, you said (in part) "I may also find it useful to semi-protect some high traffic pages on occasions". Under what circumstances would this be appropriate, in your opinion?
A. Overall I have never seen a page I tend to work on being fully protected. Bird has been semi protected for months, because it was the subject of near constant vandalism (obviously this will have to come off once it is on the main page, and I anticipate the vandalism that day will be epic in nature). Some pages, particularly well known pages like parrot or eagle occasionally attract reccuring vandals and in those situations it is appropriate to semi-protect for a few days. However it should be used sparingly as there are still some good anonymous editors writing with IPs, and of course most editors begin their career in that way. It's all about balancing the workload of the vandal fighters with the need to make editing accessible to all.
Optional question from Keegan, that is meant to be humorous as well as alleviate said user's particular frustration at optional questions, but is actually a curiosity question that might have a positive outcome in contributing free content
Q. I have uploaded a nice picture of a Muscovy duck to Commons. As an expert in birds, do you have any use for the photo?

General comments

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

Discussion

Support
  1. Support as nominator. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  2. Support valuable contributor and will be able to make good use of additional tools. Shyamal (talk) 05:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  3. Oh, absolutely excellent user. No hesitation. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  4. Strong support - great contributor. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  5. Support - an ideal candidate. Risker (talk) 06:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  6. Support, great editor, will make a good admin.-gadfium 06:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  7. Support - Exceptional article builder. I suggest taking the time to bask in the warmth of that which is admin-related areas in the near future, however, given what you intend to work on, and where you experience lies, I think I can trust you with the tools. Wisdom89 (T / C) 06:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  8. Just what we need. Hesperian 06:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  9. Support per Casliber. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 06:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  10. Support. Excellent work. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 06:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  11. Support. An excellent and experience editor who knows what he's doing. Useight (talk) 06:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  12. Support A long-standing, important contributor, always civil, accurate and diligent. no concerns at all - I'd vote twice if I could Jimfbleak (talk) 06:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  13. Support Sure looks good to me. faithless (speak) 06:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  14. Yes, please.--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 07:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  15. Support - excellent contributor who well deserves the "next step". MeegsC | Talk 08:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  16. Automatic-Casliber-support. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  17. Strong Support - How are you not a admin already? =D --Liempt (talk) 08:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  18. Suppport, no concern here. Seems capable and sensible. Neıl ☎ 09:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  19. Support, seems sensible enough, no indication that they would abuse the tools. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC).
  20. Support, Support, Support, erm, if I didn't a) see exemplary contribs and b) already trust the superb nominator I'd c) be blown away by some excellent answers to questions. Can I support three times? --Dweller (talk) 10:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  21. Support Very impressive indeed. Orderinchaos 11:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  22. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 11:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  23. As strong as possible. It doesn't matter if the user "doesn't need them," as outlined in WP:AAAD. Absolutely no hesitations about this. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 15:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  24. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  25. Support reliable user. SexySeaShark 16:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  26. Support. I actually liked the answer to Q#1. User does not "need" the tools, but will be of greater use with possession of them. MrPrada (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  27. Support. Why, of course! bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 16:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  28. Big Bird Support. Polite & humble. Trying to write an encyclopedia. Always good. Should have tools. Just asked for rollback but obviously deserves more. JFW | T@lk 17:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  29. -- Naerii 19:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  30. Support. Switching to Strong support based on your exquisite answers to the two questions by Cameron (7 & 8). Perfect answers.) Trusting the nom on this one, as I haven't seen you around. (Probably because of my severe Ornithophobia ;-). Or maybe a bad experience with one of these... Anywho, you've got a nice, easygoing civil attitude, you work to make the encyc. a better, more precise and reliable source, clean talk history, prolific writer. What's not to love? Easy support. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  31. Support - Don't much like the general lack of admin work, but feel that this is not enough to prevent me from supporting. —  scetoaux (T|C) 20:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  32. Support - Garion96 (talk) 21:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  33. Support Though I firmly disagree with your comments about the placement of citations, you're still certainly trustworthy. VanTucky 21:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  34. Support No problems to be seen. Article building is always a plus. --Sharkface217 22:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  35. Strong support. Exactly the sort of candidate we need. --JayHenry (talk) 23:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  36. Support on wings Sabine's Sunbird is smart, even-tempered, and generally awesome to collaborate with. He should know by experience when protection, unprotection, and pagemoves are appropriate, and he also knows what he doesn't know so I'm not concerned about lack of experience in other areas. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  37. Support. — Athaenara ✉ 00:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  38. Support. I find that I trust this user after reading the replies to questions. I do, however, believe that you should start slow if you decide to go into anti-vandal activities and other areas where you haven't had much experience. Malinaccier (talk) 00:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  39. Support. Clearly a dedicated editor, no reason to worry about abuse of the tools. Spinach Dip 01:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  40. Daniel (talk) 01:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  41. Support for an excellent content oriented contributor. We need all types of admins. —Moondyne click! 02:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  42. Support - Looks like a good candidate. Give em' the mop! Tiptoety talk 02:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  43. Support - "We hold these truths to be self-evident..." - Ken Thomas (talk) 03:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  44. Support - don't see any reasons they would misuse the tools; seems to have a good grip on policy. Shell babelfish 04:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  45. Support. Long-term editor with a strong commitment to encyclopedia building. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  46. Support. Any use of the admin tools, even if infrequent, is helpful. --Kbdank71 14:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  47. support Needing to move over redirects is a perfectly adequate reason for the tools, and the editing history is good enough to justify a feeling that they will be used properly. (Incidentally, as I see it, the main problem with infrequent use is a tendency to not keep up with changes in consensus about policy interpretation. Of course this can be a problem to several hundred of the current admins as well. But in general I trust them, as I trust him, to check in advance about things that might be problematic.)DGG (talk) 14:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  48. Support to quote WP:ANOT They do not need to know how "everything works". They need to know enough not to misuse what they touch, and to conduct themselves well. The emphasis is on "Not making mistakes" not on "doing it all". Users do things, admins just handle the few exceptions where for practical reasons we don't let every new user do so. Even very experienced admins, including those elected to higher positions than admin, don't know how "everything" works usually. Gnangarra 14:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  49. Support, the candidate appears to be a fantastic contributor who will use the tools responsibly. --Laser brain (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  50. Superb answers to questions. Excellent work elsewhere. Rudget (review) 15:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  51. Support as meeting my standards. Has a good sense of humor. I have no concerns. Bearian (talk) 15:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  52. Support, seems fine to me. Stifle (talk) 16:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  53. Support Okay, looks good. GlassCobra 16:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  54. Support. Does good work, seems trustworthy, and could use the tools. Best of luck, Anthøny 16:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  55. Support Although the answer to Q1 makes me slightly wary, I think this is a reliable editor, who will do just fine with adminship. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  56. Support The answer to question #8 is so good that it made me go "Wow". Royalbroil 18:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  57. support - seems trustworthy and a good hand for the tools. The oppose down at #3 really does worry me - we do not want every admin to be a vandal attacker, somebody who eats & sleeps Wikipedia... What's wrong with an admin who will grow into the tools, use them with consideration and care? Also much less likely to burn out too. Thanks/wangi (talk) 21:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  58. There are absolutely nothing but positive connotations I can give this user. For starters, his involvement in the bird wikiproject, with himself contributing four featured articles, is exemplary of the content contributions that are the core of Wikipedia and its goals. Also, the answers he gave to the questions alone are clear indicators that he understands policy, is calm and reasonable, and will use judgement when using the administrative functions. There is no reason whatsoever to oppose this candidate. Valtoras (talk) 22:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  59. Support - a grand candidate. One of those editors who has done ever such a lot for this encyclopedia. Fully deserves the tools. Lradrama 08:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  60. Support - Seems trustworthy. iMatthew 2008 10:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  61. Support - Unfortunately there are only seven admin bits left in the box, so we will soon need to start removing them from people who don't spend at least 23 out of the 24 hours each day on admin-related activities. SS clearly doesn't fit into that category so we shouldn't even dream of handing out one of the precious remaining admin bits here. Oh, wait...Yomanganitalk 11:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  62. Support No reason to think that this editor would abuse the tools. A credit to the project. -- Mattinbgn\talk 12:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  63. Support Good contributions till date. Great answers to the questions as well. Prashanthns (talk) 16:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  64. Support. Model editor. Aggressive use of admin tools is NOT a requirement. Tan | 39 18:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  65. Support Great editor! TheProf - T / C 20:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  66. Support - Nice answers. No reason to oppose. Krashlandon (e) 23:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  67. Support Excellent answers, obviously thoughtful and considered in his approach to the 'pedia. I'm particularly swooning over the attitude toward cites and content. Bless his pointy little head! Pigman☿ 06:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  68. Support. Intelligent, thoughtful, lucid, helpful. Clearly has the best interests of the project at heart. Will use the tools where needed in the chosen areas of interest and knowledge. More people like this should be made admins. SilkTork *YES! 07:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  69. Support Appears worthy of community trust. -- Avi (talk) 12:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  70. Support Thank you for your wonderful work! I have enjoyed reading all sorts of bird-related articles without ever knowing who wrote them. You explained how these tools might help you, but even if you were to use them sparingly or never, even if your answers weren't as thoughtful as they are, my support would remain strong. See also Yomangan's comment and Jimfbleak's rant. I wish you good luck. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  71. Support Even if he only uses the tools to move problem articles once a month, the project benefits. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
    Support. Anthøny 22:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC) Duplicate of #54. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  72. Support: I see no reason not to support this user. I've seen them around and have no complaints! - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  73. Support. Excellent editor. --Carioca (talk) 01:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  74. Support. Cool - YAYAY! Fattyjwoods (Push my button) 07:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  75. Support. Seems a nice, sensible and trustworthy quality editor. I understand the requirement to correctly 'move pages to existing pages' without an admin's involvement. I don't know of any level other then admin that can do that. Would like to point out that WP:AIV work sometimes required a tough skin and your apparent gentle nature could be tested. SunCreator (talk) 12:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  76. Support will not abuse the tools. SpencerT♦C 16:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  77. Support. Makes great FA contributions. SlimVirgin talk|edits 00:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  78. Support. Per the nom by Script error: No such module "user"., per some great content contributions and comprehensive WP:FAs. Cirt (talk) 01:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  79. Support - seems to have good judgement and knowledge of policy, not to mention contributions. While it's always nice to have more people over at AIV, not everyone needs to work there. --Bfigura (talk) 02:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  80. Support I have to say that I was somewhat surprised at the inclusion of [[Category:Arses]] in the Count, but upon finding that it is an Avian related cat I was quite(ly) amused. My only other comment that a subject specific sysop is no bad thing, as it negates the need for admins unfamiliar with the content to read up before using the bit, and there is no requirement that an admin to actually use the tools - they just to be trusted with the buttons. It is on that basis I am supporting. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
    Yes, that category does sound more equine/asinine/gluteal than avian. I share your concern that the space between situations where an admin is too involved to "use the tools" and those where an admin is too clueless to "use the tools" may be small enough to prevent "the tools" from ever being used. However, any problems associated with that are imaginary. — CharlotteWebb 15:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  81. Support Seems to have a good idea of what the project is about and good contributions. EdwinHJ | Talk 16:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  82. Support Looks good to me. нмŵוτнτ 21:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  83. Support - appears to be an ideal candidate, with some very good contributions Howie ☎ 22:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  84. Support: --Bhadani (talk) 01:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  85. Support Altogether seems like a wonderful editor. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  86. Support, I quite like the answer to Q2. A user who is willing to cite and not merely type {{fact}} is not a common find. FusionMix 03:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  87. Support The more good article writers we have as admins the better. Nick mallory (talk) 11:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  88. Oppose Too many FAs. :) OK, seriously, the opposes on the "doesn't need the tools" grounds are all wet as far as I am concerned. ONE good admin action justifies giving the bit. Also, per Q2. ++Lar: t/c 12:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  89. Support, great answers above, good knowledge of policy, will make a great Admin. Dustitalk to me 15:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  90. Ok. — CharlotteWebb 15:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  91. Support Only for WP Admin doing PhD. Future is now. Redeemer079
  92. Support, seem's like a good article writer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by USS Hornet (talk • contribs) 18:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  93. Support, no problems here! Good luck with the new tools! Razorflame (talk) 20:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  94. Weak Support I would prefer experience in a wider variety of admin-oriented areas, but user is trustworthy and intends to use the tools in very specific occasions only, so no problem I guess. Húsönd 20:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  95. Support This candidate should make a great, careful, productive admin. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 20:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  96. Per aboveNHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  21:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  97. Oh, go on then! Great article writing; the lack of experience at AIV does not concern me - it can be picked up very quickly. More AfD experience would be great, but you can't win them all. No real concerns = glad to support. Regards, EJF (talk) 22:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  98. Support. A very helpful and generous editor.--ragesoss (talk) 01:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  99. Support Pretty much a common sense view given the many support votes above. You got mine, you will make a great admin. Roadrunnerz45 (talk) 05:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose -- Sorry not enough work at WP:AIV to name just one! I also found the answer to Q1 rather worrying...--Cameron (t|p|c) 11:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
    Work at the various editing abuse forums and the like are not a mandatory requirement for adminship, you know... -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
    I agree 100% with Anonymous Dissident. Admins are not solely vandal fighters. Spinach Dip 00:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
    I'm an long-standing, active, vandal-bashing, page-deleting, edit-blocking, abuse-spattered admin, and I'd never heard of the forum, let alone contributed. Jimfbleak (talk) 09:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  2. Reluctantly oppose Seems to be a good editor in general. However, I do not think that he would really need access to admin tools. I suggest that he gets involved in more admin work in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephenchou0722 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
    Would you mind expanding upon your reason please? What admin related work is he "lacking"? Tiptoety talk 02:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
    Also see my rant at 3 below Jimfbleak (talk) 09:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  3. Oppose As per question 1 and per neutrals Jon513,Epbr123 and Cameron.The user has a great track in article writing ,DYK .But wonder why he/she wants the tools? Though I do not expect the user to misuse them based on track.We need active admins.[1]Further the user has little experience in vandal fighting,Deletion,Images and most aspects of admin work and shows little incination to get involved as per question 1 .Sorry for my opposing but I do not question the user commitment or forsee any misuse of tools by the user.But as said below it is a not a a recognition of hard work. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
    I have never sought to become and admin and only accepted the offer to be nominated because two editors who's opinions I respect thought it would be a good idea and beneficial to the project. I certainly don't perceive it as an award. I would like the tools because it would make things simpler in my editing, for example I would like to move Australo-Papuan Babbler to Australo-Papuan babbler (per MWP:MOS reasons) but am unable to do so now and have to ask an admin to do it. It is, as I have stated above, a tool that I may not use frequently at first, but the admin tools are not a exhaustible resource. If you give it to me that does not preculde you from giving it to someone else. I appreciate that Wikipedia needs active admins, but I cannot see how denying someone the tools because they won't use them enough is going to help that.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabine's Sunbird (talk • contribs) I can't believe I forgot to sign that! Answering all those questions above without signing has adled my brain!Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
    Wikipedia benefits from having as many trustworthy administrators as possible. RfAs are intended to establish whether a particular user can be trusted with the tools, not whether they will use them to their maximum potential. —Moondyne click! 03:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
    I find it difficult to see why a good candidate should be opposed "because he doesn't need the tools" SS is clearly a sound contributor who will not abuse admin powers, will not do any harm, and can benefit the project from protection etc powers. Not all admins have to be at the battlefront, and surely a light-touch admin is better than no admin? It's not either/or. Opposing SS doesn't create a new active admin elsewhere in the wikiuniverse Jimfbleak (talk) 09:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
    Admin tools aren't really meant to be thrown around. No admin is better than a light-touch admin, because a light-touch admin won't really add anything to the project. It's kind of pointless. It's almost like giving them adminship instead of a barnstar just to add emphasis.--KojiDude (Contributions) 03:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
    I don't usually comment on these RFAs, but I am bored at work and this caught my eye ;) Anyway, to my mind, a "light-touch" admin is fine. Imagine, if he never uses the tools, Wikipedia neither gains nor losses anything. However, if he does, just once, use them in the correct manner then Wikipedia experiences a net game gain. It's simple game theory, no? There is no loss to be encountered by entrusting this user. Lazulilasher (talk) 14:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
    Excellent opinion; and one that should be nailed onto the top of every RfA. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Neutral
  1. Neutral I find it hard to support a candidate that has not made a case for needing admin tools (Question 1). And while adminship is no big deal it is also not a recognition of hard work. It is almost impossible to ask follow up questions about how he would deal with admin related tasks as he has stated that he plans to only seldom use them. Nevertheless I found nothing problematic in his contributions and I have no real reason to oppose. Jon513 (talk) 11:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
    How do you 'move pages to existing pages' correctly (by that I mean without just overwriting and losing edit history) without an admins involvement? SunCreator (talk) 12:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  2. Neutral per lack of deletion and vandal-fighting experience. Epbr123 (talk) 11:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
    I hope you have seen, for instance, the history of Bird and the deletion discussions alerts and actions on WT:BIRD. This diff for instance should demonstrate that some vandalism reverts even need research. Shyamal (talk) 02:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  3. Neutral I don't intend any ill-respect, but an admin candidate who does not intend to use the tools gives the perception that adminship is a status. If the tools are not needed, they should not be given. I am not opposing, because I feel this is a super wikipedian, and I can see that there is overwhelming support from others, but I can not in good faith add a support vote based on the answer to Q1, and the level of experience in the venues where the tools are used. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  4. Neutral Would like to support, but I also cannot support someone who doesn't even profess to intend to use the tools. It would be nice if every new admin would help clear some existing backlogs. Anyway, this RfA passes easily, so congrats on passing the RfA! No mean feat. Enigma message Review 05:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
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 "http://debianws.lexgopc.com/wiki143/index.php?title=Wiki143:Requests_for_adminship/Sabine%27s_Sunbird&oldid=6634262"