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

ShaneKing[edit]

Final (21/2/0) ended 13:20, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

I believe being bold should extend to administrative functions, so I don't see any reason not to self-nominate myself rather than waiting for someone to nominate me. I've got over 2000 edits since 30 January 2004. I'm requesting adminship because I believe I'm a qualified, suitable candidate and that I can use the extra facilities admins have to the benefit of wikipedia.

I also mention, mostly due to not wanting to trick anyone into voting for me that might otherwise oppose, that I haven't been editing continuously since January 30. I took a long break after an initial burst of contributions, mostly because after seeing the "mess" behind the scenes I was unsure whether the project was something I wanted to dedicate my time to. I kept reading on and off during that period, and decided that although the system has its warts, all in all what's been done is an amazing piece of work, and the best way to improve those warts is to jump in and tackle them.

For the curious who can't be bothered dredging my contributions for exact dates, you can see here. I don't feel this gap in contributions should be a basis to oppose (rather I think it's a good thing, since it shows I've made a decision that I'm serious about the project). However, if you wish to oppose I understand and hope you'll support me if I renominate in the future. Shane King 09:15, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm withdrawing my self nomination. Even though it looks likely it would get up if it ran its full course, I'm not willing to spill more bad blood over it. The good I would do as an adminstrator simply isn't worth it. Shane King 13:20, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Support

1. Yay, self-nom! I didn't have a clear image of this user, but the introduction and answers to questions were encouraging, and a quick review of the edits confirms that he's a good user. — David Remahl 09:29, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
2. A very worthy self-nom. A rare pleasure indeed, support fully. fvw* 09:49, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)
3. Good user. Andre (talk) 12:18, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
4. I've only ever seen good edits by him, and he sounds cool-headed. dab 15:28, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
5. Acegikmo1 15:36, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
6. Works for me. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 21:15, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)
7. Good user. - Vague Rant 23:29, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
8. Ambi 23:33, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
9. You mean he isn't... --Slowking Man 02:35, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
10. Impressively dedicated to civility and the wiki process. Sam [Spade] 15:53, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
11. Michael Snow 19:32, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
12. Lst27 (talk) 00:03, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
13. Without the slightest hesitation.Dr Zen 02:07, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
14. Definitely. •→Iñgólemo←• 03:40, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)
15. It's about time. His dedication and the way he deals with situations is what being a good Wiki administrator is all about.Tony the Marine
16. A totally responsable contributor who is friendly and keeps it cool at all times. Definitely a yes! "Antonio Monkey Brain Martin"
17. Candidate appears to be a very level headed individual and has my vote of support. GRider 19:12, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
18. [[User:Rhymeless|Rhymeless | (Methyl Remiss)]] 23:28, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
19. ugen64 01:14, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
20. notwithstanding his support for sam spade, i still think he would be a good admin Xtra 01:26, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
21. 01:52, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC) Lee (talk)
22. T.PK 05:55, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. I question the judgment of this user considering his endorsement of Sam Spade (see User:Spleeman/Sam Spade) for arbitrator. [1] Seems like a good user overall, though. 172 00:59, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

   I find 172's spam warfare campaign [2], attempting to make Shane the scapegoat for his arbitration and antimosity against me particularly shameful. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 01:39, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

   There is no "campaign". My vote stands. Shorne 01:47, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

   I'd just like to point out that I said I disagree with many of Sam's views. You can check my declared biases on my user page! I've already read that page and yes, I disagree with a lot of the views he expresses. I don't find that a problem, wikipedia relies on editors with many points of view. Personal views should not and do not enter into it for me. Shane King 04:06, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

2. Oppose. For the same reason as 172. Shorne 01:24, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
3. Seems his active periods add up to less than two months. Gzornenplatz 12:07, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

• 2096 edits. Andre (talk) 12:18, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
• I'd just like to say that I am very disappointed that my endorsement of Sam Spade in a completely unrelated matter has any bearing on this. I consider it completely inappropriate. If you have a problem with Sam, please take it up through the correct channels, rather than trying to turn him into a pariah by trying to drive a wedge between him and those who don't have problems with him. I'm a lot more upset for him than myself: If I do or don't get adminship doesn't worry me, but I feel you're being very unfair to him by trying to take your feelings against him out on those who don't share your feelings. Shane King 03:48, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • This is not about 'getting back at Sam' or anyone else. It's a matter of judgment. I believe that an admin out to understand the ways in which Sam and other users that employ his tactics are disruptive. 172 03:56, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • If Sam is as disruptive as you say, please bring an Arb Comm case against him. Like I said, if you're unwilling to persue the matter through the appropriate channels, you're just being vidictive as far as I'm concerned. Shane King 04:06, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
      • This has nothing to do with Sam Spade and Arbcom; this is a matter of judgment. Please don't take personal offense to this. I still think that you've been a good user; I just ask that you please respect the vote to which I am entitled to make. 172 04:17, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • I respect your vote, but I feel I'm entitled to discuss it, as is convention. I notice you've asked several other people to vote against me, so I think it's important I respond. You wouldn't have voted against me if I hadn't endorsed Sam. Yet I would have still held the same opinion. So basically my error of judgement is being honest enough to be open with my thoughts. I don't feel that's an error of judgement at all, and I think it's sad that other people consider it to be. Wikipedia relies on open and honest communication, and I think it's a more than sad day if someone can't win the trust of the community unless they keep secrets from them. Shane King 04:23, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
          • To be honest, I see it as a sign that you may be a bit too trusting and unassuming for the role at this stage (Sam Spade may talk about civility and NPOV a lot, but don't let this fool you-- he breaks these policies more than just about anyone); perhaps I'll renominate you once you have interacted with the community a bit more. 172 04:28, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
            • I'm judging Sam on his actions, not on his talk. I first met Sam back in February, and I can assure you, my first impression wasn't positive. However, I believe that I judged him largely on his personal views, which are diametrically opposed to mine (as a non-religious, homosexual anarchist sympathiser, it's not hard to see that). I also think the elements of his behaviour not related to his personal views that I objected to have been corrected. Like I said, if you really think his behaviour is problematic, why not bring a case about it to the Arb Comm? That gives you a chance to state your case, and him a fair chance to make his case. I dislike this situation, where accusations are being made but nobody is willing to take action on them in a location where evidence will have to be provided. I believe people have a right to a fair trial. Please stop flinging mud unless you're willing to give Sam that right. Shane King 04:43, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
              • "Too trusting"? One of the best things about Shane is that he tries to embody the principle of taking other editors to be in good faith.Dr Zen 07:27, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

A. I regularly check recent changes and being able to more easily revert vandalism would be nice sometimes. I also like to check new pages when I'm looking for something to do, and speedy deletion would be a help.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A. I don't think being proud of articles is exactly the right way to describe it. I think being over-proud of your contributions can contribute to edit wars, as you have to have "your" text kept, so I try to view my contributions as equal with other peoples.

That said, I have done a fair bit of work on Australian Football League things, particuarly Essendon Football Club and related pages. I'm also working on stuff in Wikiproject Albums, particuarly going through the list and getting as many album covers done as possible. I'm also happy that I could work out a compromise everyone was happy with on the Talk:SkyOS page.

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 will deal with it in the future?

A. My personal view is that you're better off doing worthwhile contributions than wasting everyone's time in edit wars. You take things to talk, and if that doesn't work out, I believe in letting the other person try their edits.

The three possible results are:

1. They do a good job, pleasantly surprising you
2. They do a bad job, in which case the whole world can see it and act on it
3. They don't actually make any edits, in which case, talking about them would be a waste of time anyway.

In all cases, I think things work out in the end.

The closest I've gotten to an edit war would be over the Family First Party, where I re-added some text someone had removed from the article and brought up on the talk page. I realised I was wrong to do so and later appologised and re-added the text myself.

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.