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

Seattle Skier[edit]

Final: (34/0/2); ended 22:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Seattle Skier (talk · contribs) - Hi, I've been working diligently to help build the encyclopedia here since January. I've found an ever-increasing need for admin tools recently, so I am nominating myself.

I've been a heavy user of Wikipedia for over 3 years, and made occasional anonymous edits during that time, mostly fixing small errors and typos. I finally created an account in the waning days of 2006, as an imminent change in job status promised a bit more free time so I could contribute in a more substantial manner. I began contributing regularly in late January 2007, initially to articles about alpine skiing, and then broadening to include articles about volcanoes, glaciers, and mountains, my main areas of interest. I soon joined and began contributing to three WikiProjects: Mountains, Glaciers, and Ski.

In mid-March, after several weeks of sustained editing and article writing, I realized that something was missing. Having looked at many volcano and volcanology articles on Wikipedia, I saw a clear need for a WikiProject to coordinate interested editors and help achieve common goals. I was surprised that such a WikiProject did not already exist, so after careful consideration and reading of relevant guidelines, I decided to found WikiProject Volcanoes on March 17. Within 3 hours after the project went live, I was gratified and relieved to find that 2 experienced editors had already joined it. The project has grown rapidly since then, with about 15 participants now and encompassing over 1,900 articles and 200 categories within its scope. A comprehensive cleanup of volcanology-related categories has already been completed, and hundreds of articles have been improved, expanded, and most importantly referenced to reliable sources. A new portal has also been constructed, and article assessments have been implemented to help reach the WikiProject's goals. I have assessed over 1,100 articles myself thus far.

Since mid-February, I've also created over 50 new articles, most of them Start-class to B-class, almost all well-sourced, and very few of them stubs. In addition to numerous volcano and mountain articles, I've written several biographies, and a variety of other articles. I've also written (and revised or rewritten) several templates, infoboxes, and navboxes, so I have a fair amount of experience in the Template namespace. I try to maintain a current list of articles created and major contributions on my user page.

I've also done extensive amounts of janitorial work, most of it related to WikiProject Volcanoes and WikiProject Ski, and their associated categories which often need cleanup or maintenance. I have over 2,900 pages on my watchlist, so even without any RC patrolling I end up reverting several vandals, spammers, and non-constructive edits each day, with frequent use of warning templates as needed and an occasional report to WP:AIV if necessary. I also come across many good edits by newcomers, and try to welcome any new users for whom the welcome mat has not yet been rolled out. I've made several WP:RFPPs now, so I'm getting a good sense of when semi-protection is appropriate and for what length of time. I've also made several posts at Wikipedia:Requested moves, and have come across several other volcano articles which need to be renamed over stuck redirects. With admin tools, I could quickly do these uncontroversial moves myself.

I've been an occasionally active participant in CfD and sometimes AfD, although I'm too busy with assessments to go there lately. I've listed several pages on MfD or other XfD areas when appropriate, along with putting speedy tags on CSD#A7 / CSD#G11 articles whenever I come across them. I have experience with images: I have an account on Wikimedia Commons, and have uploaded several dozen free images there, including transferring all free images I had initially uploaded to Wikipedia. The handful of fair-use images I've uploaded here all have proper fair-use justifications written, which are linked from within a comment in the relevant article.

I believe in the principles behind Wikipedia and in its goals. I always try to keep in mind that we are here to write a free encyclopedia, and try to base my actions here upon that precept. I think that I would make good use of the extra administrative capabilities, and not abuse them in any way. Thanks. --Seattle Skier (talk) 22:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: Initially, I would use the admin tools just to avoid adding to the current backlogs, in the course of my ongoing work within those 4 WikiProjects. I could rename articles over stuck redirects, rename or delete non-controversial categories (below the level of needing CfD), and apply gentle amounts of semi-protection in cases of continual IP vandalism. I would also handle speedy deletion of obvious nonsense or non-notable groups/bands or corporate spam I came across, but I would make sure to still prod or AfD any borderline cases. I was initially too eager and aggressive in some of the XfDs I participated in ("speedy delete it", "salt it", etc.), but I've since gained a much better perspective of what the appropriate degree of action might be in such cases. If I had admin tools, I would only speedy delete something if it fit the criteria exactly, and I'd only salt as a last resort, after consulting with other admins. I'm a quick learner, so I'm sure I would contribute in other areas as my familiarity with the tools and with the most critically backlogged areas increased. Perhaps images would be a good place to help out. I would still concentrate most of my efforts on writing the encyclopedia, but I'd devote 10-20% of my Wiki time to admin duties. This seems to be a reasonable amount at first.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best contributions are WikiProject Volcanoes and the numerous articles and templates I've created or improved. Please see the statement above for details. Somehow one day (I can't remember how), I even ended up writing some articles about ferry boats, one of which rather suddenly appeared on the Main Page as a DYK. Sometimes, even creating a category can be a surprisingly good contribution. Category:Crater lakes which I created on March 27 has now quickly grown to include over 160 articles, and is already perhaps the most comprehensive list of such volcanic crater lakes available anywhere, online or offline. Only the magic of Wikipedia makes possible such a rapid synthesis of information from highly disparate sources.
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: Wikipedia does not cause me stress, I am here because I enjoy contributing. Since I have many other interests, I can just go skiing or hiking or work on my other writing projects when I need a brief wikibreak, before getting stressed out needlessly. It's much better to step away from Wikipedia for a few minutes or hours if things get heated, then come back with a clear mind.
I've had a few minor conflicts over categorization while doing cleanup and reorganization, but all were resolved positively. The only serious editing conflict I've had concerned a biography I wrote about an Icelandic geologist, Sigurdur Thorarinsson, who is known worldwide by the anglicized spelling of his name. I had followed policy at WP:NAME exactly, but as I slept overnight after creating it, an Icelandic editor summarily renamed the article using Icelandic characters and then heavily edited it to introduce Icelandic characters throughout, all without any discussion or even an attempt to communicate with me. That's the only time I've been upset about a situation on Wikipedia, as I felt justifiably miffed by the unilateral actions. I discussed the issue at length with two Icelandic editors, back and forth, and then decided to temporarily put the article aside so that my Wiki time could be spent more productively working on other articles.
That was 6 weeks and 6,000 edits ago, and it was a learning experience. I have learned much about interacting on Wikipedia since then, and I've returned to work on that article to improve and expand it. I also have a personal 1RR preference (not strict, but also sometimes even 0RR) before taking the issue to an article's or user's talk page, so edit wars are easily avoided.

Optional question from ObiterDicta:

4. What's more important: policy or consensus?
A: On Wikipedia, consensus is more important than policy. This is a consensus-based wiki, not a policy-based one. Other than a few initial edicts from Jimbo and the Foundation, policies here were developed and approved by consensus. Thus policies represent the codified consensus of current and former Wikipedians, in a compact and easily accessible form for reference as needed. Consensus is also capable of changing policy, and as consensus itself may change over time, policies must be revised to reflect this ongoing evolution.
This is not to say that in day-to-day situations, consensus should always trump policy. In many cases, consensus is difficult to determine, and existing policies should generally be followed, especially as they represent prior consensus. A further caveat is that with a small sample size, say 4 or 5 opinions (such as at many XfDs), even a single legitimate dissenting voice may be enough to throw true consensus in doubt. In such cases, I believe the status quo should be maintained until a larger sample of opinions is available to determine consensus. That is because the status quo (e.g. the current content of an article or category) generally represents prior consensus developed via the wiki process. --Seattle Skier (talk) 02:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question

5. Do you think that your password can be easily guessed? (say no for all our sakes) Esperanza Ortega 01:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: No. I have further increased its security since the recent account break-ins. --Seattle Skier (talk) 03:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Seattle Skier before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Support

  1. Seattle Skier appears to be an excellent volunteer to have on the project and I'm sure he'll be an even greater asset with some extra buttons. I especially like how he handled himself on the talk page of Sigurdur Thorarinsson. While I've not yet had the opportunity to meet the fellow, his discourses there lead me to believe that he's not only easily approachable, but also an excellent person to work with on improving the encyclopedia. Good luck! gaillimhConas tá tú? 22:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support A very nicely written self-nomination and good answers to the questions (especially Q3, as Gaillimh mentioned). The user's been here for five months, but has demonstrated everything needed in a potential admin, so I see no problems giving the tools to Seattle Skier. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 00:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Has come far in just a few months...let's see how they do! Jmlk17 00:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Contributions look great; appropriate and constructive interactions. Give'em the mop, eh? -- MarcoTolo 03:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support--MONGO 04:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support I'd prefer more user Talk edits but I'm sure that they will rack up quickly once you start vandal patrols, etc. (aeropagitica) 04:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support--Jespinos 04:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support absolutely. Should make Wikipedia a better place with the tools. —Anas talk? 08:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Good, well-rounded user. Lowish user talk edits, but your well-written self nom shows that communicating with fellow users shouldn't be a problem. Good luck! – Rianaऋ 09:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this candidate! - 11:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Your growth as a Wikipedian appears to be straining your shirt. I'm sure we can tack on a few extra buttons to make things better. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 14:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - not enough experience..so what !!..----Cometstyles 14:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Would be nice to see a little more experience but your edits are nicely varied, I see no problems and I think you would use the tools well.The Sunshine Man 15:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. I have not found any major problems. --Mschel 15:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support per Riana. Walton Need some help? 17:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support, looks fine. --Phoenix 21:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support The project work is a fine marker of collaborative spirit. He will work well for the community. JodyB talk 11:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support per excellent statement and questions. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support per good answers. —User:AldeBaer / User talk:AldeBaer 16:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support No oppose yet, so I´ll support. ♠Tom@sBat 23:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support dedicated... keep it up.. wiki-skiing...--I am greener than you! (Lima - Charlie - Over) 06:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support A great canidate, went above and beyond to answer my questions and I like all his answers. Good luck. NeoFreak 12:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Terrific candidate who will mop wisely. KrakatoaKatie 13:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Never say 3 or 4 months is not enough for someone to become an admin! - Good luck. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 13:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Weak Support. Few meaningful projectspace contributions (after subtracting all the WikiProject Volcanoes activity), but consistent with Q1. -- Y not? 14:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support: While only 3 or 4 months is usually a little short for me, I believe this user seems dedicated. Has plenty of experience and edit summary usage is also excellent.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 00:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Great self-nomination and answers. Acalamari 23:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support John254 00:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Seems like a good candidate. Captain panda 13:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support changed from 'Neutral'. --Xdamrtalk 12:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support because I could not live with myself otherwise --Infrangible 18:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. PeaceNT 15:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Rettetast 19:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

  1. Neutral. I feel like there's a bit of a WP:OWN issue in this entire thread, but overall a good editor. -- LeCourT:C 18:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral Changed to Support Looks good but I can't support until I get some clarification on Q4. Are you saying that a large consensus on an article should allow for exeption of policy under IAR and/or without having to change policy to reflect that example (or exception)? Does the contribution history and standing of theose editors that form that consensus matter? How would you gauge that? Sorry for all the questions in a vote, I can reformat the question as a follow up to Q4 if that would be prefered. NeoFreak 16:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In the second part of Q4.A, I stated that consensus should not always override policy, and that because consensus is difficult to determine, existing policies should generally be followed. In any single case (e.g. an XfD or an article talk page debate), even if there is an apparently large consensus it is important to look at editors' contribution history and standing, primarily to ensure that the editors are independent legitimate contributors and not sock puppets or new single-purpose accounts. Sometimes things are difficult to gauge and require good judgment, which I believe I have and which will be further sharpened in a Wikipedia-specific sense with ongoing experience here.
    Please feel free to post a follow-up to Q4 if additional clarification is needed. Thanks. --Seattle Skier (talk) 17:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose my more immediate concern was in article space. For instance if five or ten editors from a wikiproject were working on say a pornographic actor's article and they found reason amounst themselves to find him/her as a notability exception or wanted to treat a piece of unattributed information as "common knowledge" or a videogame wikiproject had the same issue with a "how to" section being exceptional. In these cases would you bow to the consensus of those established editors in good standing and concur with an exception under IAR or would you require that they first attempt to have to policy changed? Thanks for taking the time to follow up with me, I appreciate it. NeoFreak 18:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In the cases you have mentioned, I would probably not bow to the consensus of a relatively small group of editors with similar interests. I think that "ignore all rules" only applies when the rules prevent actions which would clearly improve the encyclopedia. The examples you have provided would not clearly (and without doubt) improve the encyclopedia, so I would be hard-pressed to find leeway for contravening policy in those cases. I would encourage the editors to abide by established policies, or seek more widespread consensus to modify or insert exceptions into the relevant policies. --Seattle Skier (talk) 22:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you further clarify your stance on Jimbo, Foundation, and core content policies? Is consensus more important than those? falsedef 23:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears that the initial principles set down by Jimbo and the Foundation, along with other core content policies established by the Foundation and its Board, are largely fixed and not easily altered via the normal wiki processes. But I don't think that all Foundation policies are immutable and beyond the reach of consensus, only that the degree of consensus required for any modification would likely have to be long term and near-unanimous. Personally, I am comfortable accepting certain fixed fundamental principles on which the entire project here is based. --Seattle Skier (talk) 23:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks so much for clearing all that up, I will change my vote vote accordingly. NeoFreak 12:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral Changed to Support I was left a little concerned by the tenor of your contributions during the recent Deletion review of Category:Non-fiction outdoors writers. As I observed at the time, some of your contributions (eg [1], [2] ) seemed assume a degree of bad faith. Whether this was your intention or not, this was the impression gathered. I don't consider this enough to oppose, and I may revise my view once I take a look at your contributions, but be aware that admins are held to higher standards than other editors—this includes WP:CIVIL. --Xdamrtalk 09:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your comment, Xdamr. You're right, I should have handled myself better in that DRV. I will continue to make efforts to improve the tone of (and reduce any harshness in) my comments, even when I feel strongly about an issue and the discussion gets heated. --Seattle Skier (talk) 14:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Having taken a look through your contributions, I don't find any reason to oppose you. You seem to have taken my comments in good part, so there's no real reason to hold this incident against you. As a result I've changed my view to support. I've no doubt that you will make an excellent admin. --Xdamrtalk 12:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. One of the most promising editors I've seen in a long time. Excellent contributions and very thoughtful. In a perfect world, adminship would be no big deal. However, administrators are often called upon to make difficult decisions that require a nuanced view of policy and common practice that can only be gained by observation over time in Wikipedia space and not just by editing here. Admins that don't understand policy and practice can find themselves in trouble. I cannot bring myself to oppose such an outstanding candidate, but would prefer a few more months of seasoning before we threw him to the wolves. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 00:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category