Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sam Vimes


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

Sam Vimes
Final (25/11/3) ended 14:55 31 August 2005 (UTC) - Sam joined Wikipedia in December 2004 and has been an active editor since May. A tireless, high quality contributor, particularly to Cricket related articles. I don't recall his being in any significant conlfict and his conrtibutions and user talk page don't show evidence of this either. In short I think he will make a good administrator.
 * According to Kate's tool, Sam has made 3987 edits to 1580 different pages. --Thryduulf 14:55, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept. Sam Vimes 15:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) As the nominator it will suprise nobody that I think Sam is worthy of the proverbial mop and bucket. Thryduulf 14:56, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) I second it Tintin 15:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) jguk 17:11, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Good job on the cricket articles.  Guettarda 21:50, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) I don't usually vote for folks I have no interaction with, but jguk saying it'd be useful for cricket, fine with me. And tat template rule nonsense below?  That's exactly what templates should be used for. SchmuckyTheCat 21:55, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Support.  Obvious dedication to Wikipedia, handled himself quite well in the VFD.  I doubt there would be any issue with giving him admin rights.  -- JamesTeterenko 04:57, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Support -- Ryan Norton T 05:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Merovingian (t) (c) 06:05, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Support – He has done a lot of work in the cricket realm.  =Nichalp   «Talk»=  06:18, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Support A dedicated and responsible editor. --Ngb 08:12, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Support - see comments below. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:20, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Support. I've reviewed his user pages and checked through some of his contributions, and I conclude he's ready. (Plus, we Norwegians have to stick together.) Jonathunder 14:37, 2005 August 25 (UTC)
 * 13) Cool. JuntungWu 15:31, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Support The rational used by those voting oppose seems weak at best. freestylefrappe 04:50, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Support.  An all round good guy. -- Ian &equiv; talk 09:19, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) Support, has sufficient experience to say he will be a good admin. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:49, 2005 August 26 (UTC)
 * 17) Support. A good writer of articles. David | Talk 15:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) Support. Meets my guidelines. Lack of WP: edits is a concern, but Sam's answers to the standard questions and responses to comments lead me to believe he will make good use of the mop. android  79  20:57, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) Support. Loganberry (Talk) 01:31, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 20) The whole thing about rules is really not applicable here. He violated a convention, and a not terribly important one at that. Support. Andre ( talk ) 05:52, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * 21) I ask one question when voting on RfAs. "Would Wikipedia lose anything by the promotion?"  I don't know how much WP would gain by Sam's being an admin, although I hope it would be a lot, but I do know that WP would not get worse.  He has my confidence.  And he's the Norweigan cricket fan.   [[smoddy ]] 12:21, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 22) Support, to counterweigh against the oppose votes of the wikilawyers and the deletionist society. Sigh. Kelly Martin 14:24, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * 23) Support. Seems to be a fine user. I couldn't make much sense of the oppose votes. Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:10, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 24) Yes please. --Peripatetic 12:02, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 25) Support - my standards like him. --Celestianpower hab 16:05, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Srongly oppose:  "even if there were some rules broken" pretty much says it all.  We need less of that.  Get the rules changed, if you believe in it strongly.  Otherwise, obey them, because when administrators start trashing rules for their own ideologies, we get the nastiest wars of all. Geogre 18:52, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose- strong focus on only editing cricket pages suggests that he does not need admin powers. Astrotrain 20:50, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) *What makes you think that the same need for admin powers is needed in cricket-related articles as is needed in any other type of articles? There's the same need to repel vandals to cricket articles (by blocking and reverting and protecting), deleting unnecessary pages/useless redirects. Most people specialise in areas that most interest them, Sam's no different, jguk 21:19, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) *I agree with jguk. Just because SV dedicates his energy to cricket-related articles, doesn't make him less worthy or less knowledgeable person. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  06:18, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose, somewhat reluctantly. A good contributor, with a prominent nominator. I oppose not because of "the rules" thing, since that's minor. However, with only 100 or so edits to Wikipedia: space and the same to Wikipedia talk: space, he has only a passing acquaintance with what admins do. Answer to question 1 doesn't seem to show particular enthusiasm for doing what admins do, either. Nothing wrong with discussion on VfD pages, by the way! -Splash 23:40, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 07:11, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Harro5 07:17, August 25, 2005 (UTC). Doesn't appear to have any aims about what he'd do as an admin. No current involvement in WP-space endeavours, therefore no need for a mop and bucket.
 * 8) Oppose for lack of experience in Wikipedia namespace. However, I do want to state that the "rules broken" issue about templates was in fact a good-faith attempt by Sam to streamline a number of articles, so I would ask people to not hold that against him. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 10:05, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose but more for the reasons given by Encephalon and Acetic Acid in their neutral votes, than for much of the dicussion above this line. Hamster Sandwich 21:17, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Very strongly oppose. I'm all for low standards for adminship, but when someone writes articles like this, it says to me that the author has no understanding whatsoever of NPOV or the Manual of Style. Such a person really should not be an administrator, at least at this point in time. Ambi 14:38, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Um, what??? There is nothing POV about that article.  Admittedly, one or two of the words could be changed to make it more encyclopaedic than newspapery, but there is no point-of-view in there.  As to the Manual of Style, these articles are, as discussed ad magnam nauseam, special cases that will be sorted out in due course.   [[smoddy ]] 14:45, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * It constantly expresses opinions about individual performances, and ignores the manual of style altogether, while making no effort at encyclopedic writing. If someone doesn't know how to write an encyclopedia article, why on earth are they being considered for adminship on an encyclopedia project? Ambi 16:19, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I still fail to see your issues with the page. How about discussing  it at Talk:England Women v Australia Women 24-27 August 2005?  There is a reason that it fails to conform to the MoS, and it is not that Sam doesn't understand it.  Rather, it is that that page is not in itself a long-term encyclopaedia article.  It will eventually be merged into relevant articles and appropriately redirected.   [[smoddy ]] 16:34, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The page makes no effort to follow the conventions of every other encyclopedia article, with regard to bolding and lead sections - i.e. making it an encyclopedia article as opposed to a news story. The language is utterly inappropriate for an encyclopedia article (since when has "Tail-end heroics from the last test" been NPOV?) - Sam himself admitted on his talk page that he was "expressing praise" for the players rather than reporting on the facts.
 * Claiming that the articles are only temporary is no excuse either. Sam is writing these articles in the main namespace, so he should be following policy in the meantime. There is always the option of writing in his user namespace, but if he is writing material in the article namespace that ignores our key policies (NPOV and "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" are the two most non-negotiable) so flagrantly - whether he is not understanding or knowingly ignoring them, he should not be an administrator. Ambi 16:56, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree that the wording on that page was less than perfect. However, saying that he admitted "expressing praise" for the players rather than reporting on the facts is blatantly untrue. His definition of NPOV is different to yours, certainly, but that doesn't mean that he is unsuitable admin material. That article was certainly neutral, whatever you say. The wording might not have been encyclopedic, but that's easy to fix, right? As to the other point, this has been endlessly debated. The articles are temporary in their existence as permanent articles. However, look at the "what links here" for the article in question. Look at the transclusion on Australian Women in England in 2005. That is why the article is formatted as it is. Incidentally, responding to your point on Sam's talk page, I think this an excellent example of why IAR is a crucial part of the wiki concept. The encyclopaedia is enhanced from having this transclusion and this article. The MoS is secondary to encyclopaedia content. [[smoddy ]] 17:06, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Claiming that article was both neutral and encyclopedically written is a stretch. It remains the sort of effort that one would expect from a newbie who hasn't yet seen the welcome message pointing them policies and the MoS. It's also not the only one; all Sam's match articles seem to have the same flaws. In any case, Smoddy can argue until the cows come home, but I believe a look at Sam's contributions will illustrate my point entirely; useful contributor and good potential future admin, but one who really needs to actually read our most basic policies before being let loose in more controversial areas like deletion. Ambi 17:39, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Arguing until the cows come home seems remarkably pointless when no-one is listening. I would, however, thank Sam for the sterling work he has done for WP in cricket fields, rather than criticise him for it.  That would, of course, go against the current Wikipedia trend of moaning at cricket fans...  [[smoddy ]] 23:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. I have to agree with Ambi. CDThieme 18:31, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. I'm agreeing with Ambi too.  He doesn't seem to have a good grasp on the differences between Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects, namely Wikinews.  He's written all of these articles on regular-season cricket matches that are much better suited for Wikinews (and I've told him this on VfD discussions for those), yet he and the other cricket editors insist on keeping them here, when that level of detail in covering a cricket season is not really that necessary in this wiki.  Nevertheless, I do think it's a good idea to have admins who have fields of expertise to which they are willing to contribute a lot (I've supported several candidates based on that reason); but I also think that he should explore other namespaces, such as WP:, and articles on other topics. --Idont Havaname 20:27, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. Yikes. Wasn't planning on voting until I saw England Women v Australia Women 24-27 August 2005. Written like a news article, certainly not presented in an encyclopedic fashion ("a paltry 131"? "tail-end heroics"?). I'm not sure this "article" is even appropriate for Wikipedia, but that's another matter. In any case, I cannot see how one so unfamiliar with Wikipedia practice and policies (or who is familiar but chooses to ignore them) could be considered a suitable candidate for adminship. If I had come across this on RC patrol I would think it the work of a new/anonymous user, not think it the work of someone seeking adminship. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 05:16, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Is it not better to ignore the rules to get a better encyclopaedia than to slavishly follow them where this would be harmful? As to the style of the article, it's not actually a criterion for adminship that someone should be able to write perfectly.  What do you think Sam would do badly as an admin?  What would it cost WP to make him an admin?  These should be the questions asked, not "do I like the way this user goes about writing encyclopaedia articles?".   [[smoddy ]] 11:17, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * As with all recent events which will soon be in the past and reported as history, the important thing is to get them into WP when they happen - there's plenty of time to improve them and smarten them up later. Why not describe a team's total of 131 as "paltry"? It is. Would someone not so familiar with cricket as Sam know that it was a miserable score? OK, there are other ways of describing it, but at least it's a good adjective that conveys exactly what the situation is - and anyone who wants to is free to replace the wording with something else anyway. It seems somewhat ironic that it took 12 minutes from Sam posting the article about the Aussie Women losing the Ashes for the first time in 42 years to an Aussie woman opposing him for posting it; it also seems ironic that many candidates who have not made any significant edits to the article namespace whatsoever sail through RfA as they are considered "good candidates", whereas fault is found in those who contribute the most and only want a mop to help them with their contributions. But RfA is sometimes a perverse place. Sam is a good WPian who wouldn't abuse the mop. It's a shame he won't get it, jguk 15:25, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Though I agree with your conclusion -- I too think Sam would be an excellent administrator -- I think you should be assuming good faith here: Ambi has stated a legitimate reason for disliking these articles and I don't think insinuations about national bias are helpful here. --Ngb?!? 15:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm sure it's just coincidence, just somewhat ironic too:) jguk 16:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * You accused me of national bias. I don't even follow cricket, thank you. I was browsing newpages, saw the awful quality article, dropped the author a note about it, and then was shocked to find that he was up for adminship. Ambi 13:16, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Pending some answers .Neutral. Thank you for your responses, Sam. This is my first non-support vote, and I make it reluctantly but with the confidence that you could make a great admin some day, but not quite today. Very best wishes— Encephalon  |  &zeta;   21:11:01, 2005-08-25 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral This vote was really hard to decide, so I'll stay neutral for now. I can overlook the template usage rule, as your justification of breaking that rule is endorsed by WP:IAR. But, your lack of posts to the Wikipedia namespace and to talk pages is a little disappointing. Acetic Acid 06:35, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral, teetering on Support. You're, by every meaning of the word, a bold editor, and I like that. I'm a little concerned about the rules thing, but now that I think about it, that shouldn't be too much of a problem. We do have rules for a reason, just remember that.

Comments
 * Without wishing to turn this into a summary trial, what rules were broken in the described process, and why? I enquire because, whilst I generally agree with Geogre above, there is the occasion when it is plain to all that a literal following of the rules is the wrong thing to do. Not always by any means, but occasionally. -Splash 20:05, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * OK. The specific rule was Template namespace, namely that Templates should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article. The trouble was that to place four copies of the same text on four different pages was inefficient, and also meant that every time I wished to update one match report (because of an error, say) I would have to go to each of the four pages and update. The transclusion method was simpler to use for me as an editor, hence I used it. And, now that I look at the page, it doesn't actually say that "this page is a policy on Wikipedia", either.Sam Vimes 20:26, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Sam, congratulations on your nomination. I've been looking at some of your contributions in the article namespace. You've done an enormous amount of work here, particularly with cricket-related articles, and I'm sure most Wikipedians will be glad for these excellent contributions to the Project. Thank you for them. I do have three questions, however.
 * 1) Kate's tool has it that some 3200+ of your 4000+ edits are in the article namespace ; while that figure leaves us with no doubt about your dedication to improving content on WP — an important attribute of administrators — it also provides some cause for concern: in your entire time here, you have made just 111 edits to the Wikipedia namespace, an area with some important administrative duties. How much of your work on WP actually involves sysop-related activity, and how familiar do you believe you are with them?
 * Hm. I don't know whether reverting vandalism is a sysop-related activity, and I only do it when I discover it - i.e. when I'm not writing articles and have a bit of spare time. I am in possession of CryptoDerk's Vandal Fighter, though, and use it to try and spot the vandals. I participate in VfD somewhat irregularly, but I believe I am clear about the rules that prevail there. Other things include moving and protecting pages and blocking IPs - naturally I have little experience with these matters, but I will try to review each case and see whether there is a controversy involved. Basically, I don't involve myself with WP namespace because I feel that is admin territory. Sam Vimes 06:30, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Geogre and Splash raise an important point about rule-breaking. In your response, you indicate that you (apparently) broke rules in editing articles because that made it "simpler... for me as an editor." That's as honest an answer as any, I suppose. Nevertheless, I was wondering if you might tell us which rules you feel may be broken because they make things easier to do, WP:IAR notwhitstanding? Best wishes— Encephalon |  &zeta;   00:04:21, 2005-08-25 (UTC)
 * "All rules are equal, but some are more equal than others." 3RR is a pretty obvious rule that should never be broken by someone who wishes to become an admin, since the repercussions of breaking that can be that everyone goes: "Oh, the admin broke it. It's ok. It's no big deal." Or, if it is broken accidentally, at least admit it and accept the block. The behaviour guidelines are there for a reason, since the place would be even more chaotic without them (if possible). I do try to follow the content/style guidelines, but I mostly apply my own common sense for those. Sam Vimes 06:30, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I very rarely vote here (I dislike the popularity contest that this has become) but I feel I must counter some of the criticisms above.
 * WP:IAR is there for a reason - sometimes it is worse to slavishly follow the rules than to break them. I trust that the templates for the cricket matches will turn into proper summary/overview articles, in due course.  There is no need for a long article on every match of any sport, but we have some featured articles containing quite detailed summaries of some cricket matches already (Bodyline or History of Test cricket (1884 to 1889)).
 * It is not as if there is a limited amount of admin power, which has to be given out sparingly. Any editor in good standing could and should be an admin - it just makes it easier to write an encyclopaedia when you can fix cut and paste page moves, revert vandalism with one click, block repeat vandals, etc.  That is what the mop and bucket (and shield of steel, and sawn-off shotgun) are for.  The more active admins there are, the easier it is for everyone.  We don't need every admin to be involved on VfD, VfU, RM, etc.  There is not a lot that an admin can do that can't be done by any editor, if a little slower, and it is all pretty much reversible. There is pretty good peer review by other admins, and "rouge" admins tend to be hassled (although rather too little, actually - a proper Requests for de-adminship would help).  -- ALoan (Talk) 09:20, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) I think a lot is being made about SV's edits in the Wikipedia namespace. I checked the recent sucessfull candidates and they have edits in the range of about 200-300. I'm sure being off by 100 does not make a candidate less worthy! One of last week's candidates had just five edits to the wikipedia talk namespace! Why wasn't it brought up then?  =Nichalp   «Talk»=  11:45, August 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * As you are an editor who does occaisionally make contributions to VfD, I would like to know, what percentage specifically (within 5%) would you consider to be consensus when closing a VfD or related function? Hamster Sandwich 20:32, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 70 % seems like a good number for consensus to be reached - or when the last eight or nine or so votes are identical because some new information has been discovered. Sam Vimes 20:42, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 75% seems a bit high. Also I feel that some of the concerns other editors have made here have a great deal of relevance. An administrators first duty is to the Wikipedia, but secondarily to the community as well. I think you are a better than average editor particularly in cricket related subjects, but thats not enough for me to give my support. Hamster Sandwich 21:13, 25 August 2005 (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. Rolling back vandalism and blocking malignant contributors (well, that one was obvious). Also, even though I'm not a regular VfDer, I will try to keep a look-out for discussions that have consensus and are just waiting to be closed, after the five-day period, obviously.
 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. With jguk, I feel Wikipedia now has a comprehensive coverage of the 2005 English cricket season to rival any source on the internet, and possibly even Wisden Cricketer's Almanack. Even if there had to be some rules broken in the process, and even though I imagine the pages currently are a bit unaccessible for people who aren't into cricket yet. Outside of my contributions to WikiProject Cricket, I'm quite pleased with the Speedway World Championship article.
 * 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've had two articles on VfD - Nottinghamshire v Yorkshire (26 June) and Essex v Glamorgan (15 May). Those debates were rather heated, and I probably discussed a bit more than you should on VfD pages. I hope those debates will show, however, that I prefer to discuss the matter at hand rather than the people. I've never been involved in any serious content dispute, however.


 * 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.