Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sam Vimes 2


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

Sam Vimes
Final (68/19/2) ended 16:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

– Sam joined Wikipedia in December 2004 and was previously nominated for adminship by Thryduulf in August 2005. He is a very active member of WikiProject Cricket. There were some concerns in his last nomination that he had broken rules in creating article content in templates, but I believe this issue is now resolved (it was always a temporary measure in any event) and consigned to history. I am sure that he will be a good admin. ALoan (Talk) 09:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Sam Vimes 16:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) Nominator. ALoan (Talk) 09:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support, excellent contributor in every respect. Lord Havelock Vetinari 16:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC) (sorry, I just couldn't resist)
 * 3) Support - Good admin candidate. Very helpful. - Ganeshk  ( talk ) 16:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Strong Support Changing to Weak Support after concerns about not warning vandals after reverting. Although I still maintain that he is a great editor & will not misuse the tools. --Srikeit (Talk 19:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support.-- Kungfu Adam ( talk ) 20:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. Maybe he could use the test templates a bit more, but I see nothing in more that eleven thousand edits to suggest that he'd abuse the tools.  Lots of civil interactions, lots of admin-style tidying up.  He'd clearly be an asset as an admin.  --Hugh Charles Parker (talk - contribs) 20:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support "Failure to warn vandals" is not a reason to oppose a valuable vandalhunter who could use the extra buttons in order to continue useful anti-vandalism work. His answers suggest that this isn't even 100% accurate. Positive reinforcement is better than negative, so: I support Sam Vimes becoming an admin as this user will from now onwards generally warn vandals when appropriate. Easy. Also, specialisation in article development is a Good Thing. Not everyone needs to be generalists and Wikipedia benefits form having specialists - in any subject - on board and equipped with the right tools. ➨  Я Є  DVERS  21:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. Will make a good admin. DarthVad e r 22:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Would you be kind enough to elaborate why you think Sam would be a good admin? I'm only asking because I'd be quite willing to reconsider my oppose if I see enough evidence to support your statement. Petros471 22:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * For starters, Sam will be a trustworthy admin. He has shown a great committment to wikipedia with the quality and amount of contributions that he has made. He is also a civil user, and will therefore be able to negotiate in a civil way with other admins and users, as admins must do. Sam will deal with vandals and other disputes in the correct ways, and he has a good history in anti-vandalism. Sure, he might not warn vandals completely correctly, but I am pretty well of the same opinion of Opabinia regalis that warning obvious one-off vandalism is a bit of a waste. I think that Sam will take on the messages put forward in the oppose votes and will warn vandals a bit more than he does now. As well as this anti-vandal work, Sam says that he will help out with deletion issues. There is a bit of a backlog with image deletion, and from what I've seen of Sam, he will carry out these deletions as set out in policy. Sam has been a fine contributor to wikipedia and I believe that he will also be a good admin based on the contributions that he has made. DarthVad e r 22:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Per above. --Rory096 23:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support good user, has a strong edit history with plenty of material contributions to Wikipedia articles and has also contributed to various project spaces, trustworthy, engages in administrator-like work and debates (wikiproject, afd, arbcom elections), writes non-stub articles, understands policy - been active since 13 May 2005, percent edit summary use: 91.65% (for all edits), also rv vandalism with rare warnings is 100% better than not rv vandalism at all (agree with Opabinia regalis) and finally, narrow range of interest can only be good for raising the quality of WP. feydey 00:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per above. SushiGeek 01:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per above. To forget to warn vandals, even repeatedly, is not a horrible offense.  This argument seems to form just about 90% of the opposition's argument.  We can collectively take it upon ourselves to politely remind him, and I'm sure that Sam would kindly vow to remember to warn vandals. I also do not hold it against someone for specializing in a certain area of interest.).  That's natural.  If the user becomes too narrow, however, it can be a problem.  Adambiswanger1 02:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support, not warning vandals, thou annoying is a habit that will go away after the first dozen of commited vandals that he would not able to block due to the luck of warnings. Otherwise satisfy my criteria. abakharev 02:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support per Redvers and DarthVader --rogerd 03:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Strong support. Sam is a fine contributor who is always civil and helpful to other editors. He would make a first rate administrator.  The image deletion backlog is a bit of a problem and all help there is appreciated (see Category:Images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons for a start).  I have found Sam to be always sincere in his editing and approach and as such, his answer to Gwernol's question below should put people's minds at ease if they have any doubts regarding the warning template issue.  I personally think that's a bit of a non-issue in terms of opposing an RfA - give him the tools and I'm certain he'll be an even more useful vandal fighter. -- I@n &equiv; talk 04:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Very Strong support - I have noted that many people have cited that Sam is unproven in people-skills due to raw numbers, but I think that it can be seen to be incorrect by looking at his treatment of me as a newbie in User talk:Blnguyen/Archive1. Also, as per the high project edits, most people have high project edits due to "voting" on AfDs, and in the case of most AfD entries, the vast majority have little meaningful comment, and a lot of people with high project count repeatedly refer to it literally as a vote. See WT:CRIC for more evidence of his collaborative abilities and understanding. As for the comments about the diversity, Sam has written on a variety of sports and the participation of a people from a variety of countries in the given sports throughout a wide time era of the history of sport. The fact that he has written on many different types of sport is no different to the fact that there have been many admins (not least of all BD2412 of all people) who concentrate on writing in an equally focused range of topics, such as law, politics, geography of their given country, history of their given country, only vandalism-reverts in the case of Naconkantari. He is a very humble and gracious person, and I am 100% confident that he will warning vandals appropriately. Furthermore, I do not see how not doing so is an abuse of tools. Sam definitely gave me a good impression of WP when I was new, in upholding its good name, so I think his ability to have a positive effect on (particularly new) contributors would also be much enhanced as an admin.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support, this is what adminship is for: trusted contributors who we don't fear will misuse some extra helpful buttons. Sam is a fine editor to whom there is no reason not to give the buttons. None of those opposing have presented a single coherent reason for mistrusting his judgment. Dmcdevit·t 04:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support I was looking at his credentials and i think he will make a great admin, he just needs to start warning the vandals--The Nation 04:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support Quality contributor who brings a wealth of knowledge to Wikipedia and deserves to be an admin.  R o  gerthat  Talk  04:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Support for one of the finest Wikipedians that I know. Tintin (talk) 05:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Support as per Dmcdevit. Pete.Hurd 05:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Support. Excellent contributor to the encyclopedia. The one example I remember best is the article on Heggedal. The initial versions were infested with fallacies and nonsense from schoolkids. After noting his concerns on the talkpage, Sam Vimes took it upon himself to sort out the huge list of nonsense and rewrite the entire thing making a much better article. That is the type of Wikipedian we need. Also, I think it is wrong to oppose because he does not warn vandals after reverting the vandalism. Really, we should be glad that he is willing to RC patrol in the first place, since it is a tedious job. I have no evidence whatsoever that he will abuse the admin tools, and find the opposition unconvincing. Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Support, no problems. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Support work at Cricket WikiProject has been very good.  Noble eagle  (Talk)  08:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Support but please do take the time to warn vandals. A quick ~ on the person's talk page doesn't take long and helps people that find their vocation on Wikipedia is vandalfighting. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 10:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Support, another person I'm aware of who I thought was an admin already. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Bloody Strong Support, Sam is an excellent contributor who is reasoned in discussions, adept at recognising consensus and well versed in policies and guidelines. I only hope he doesn't go out and get Freddied at the announcement of this result.  Hiding Talk 13:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Support - good grief, if the only complaint is that he doesn't always warn vandals, then he sounds like a good candidate to me. Can anyone honestly say that they have left a warning in every single case of vandalism they have reverted?  Sometimes, I have reverted and someone has beaten me to the punch.  Sometimes, I'm reverting day-old vandalism to something on my watchlist and there just isn't a point - whoever did it is probably not on the same IP.  Sometimes, there are already eleventy billion "the next time you vandalize you will be blocked" messages on the talk page and one more just isn't going to matter that much.  Yes, warning templates obviously should be left most of the time, but this is something that can simply be explained to the user.  I don't see a reason to oppose if that is the only problem. BigDT 14:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Support, do warn vandals. --Terence Ong (talk 14:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) Support -- as I did the last time. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  15:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 23) Support per the "no big deal" clause, and because Sam's heart is in the right place, but I suggest an early period of mentorship from an experienced admin re. the need for warnings and reasonable adherence to process. Just zis Guy you know? 18:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 24) Strong support I'm breaking my no-RfA rule here for Sam.  He is an excellent editor and his answers to the questions below show great maturity.  I note that I do not always place a vandal warning on every vandalism revert I perform.  Often (e.g. AOL), it's worse than useless.  Other times, such as obviously one-off incidents of vandalism, make a warning pointless.  And an insistence on the Exact Specified Warning Templates (patents pending) is stupid, if I might be blunt.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 22:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 25) Support (changed from Neutral) subject specialists are good things, and my opinion of the subject shouldn't be (very) relevant. As below, lack of warnings not an issue. Opabinia regalis 23:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 26) M e rovingian { T C @ } 23:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 27) Support. Failure to warn vandals is not my reason to oppose. I see no major problem.--Jusjih 00:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 28) Support. Seems fine in general. Do warn the vandals, but I suspect you've learned that one already. BryanG(talk) 04:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 29) Weak support despite lack of vandal warnings. Still a good editor, and his work shows he will make good-faith use of adminship, even if his Q&A proposals are a little vague. - Draeco 06:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 30) Full support. I nominate Sam last time, and I feel that he has only improved since then. Thryduulf 10:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 31) Support. Seems like a fine candidate, and I have no doubt that he'll be warning vandals after this. If I remember right, though, Mr Vimes wasn't a great fan of being promoted. I say make him Captain of the Watch, but nothing higher. Madd4 Max 14:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 32) Support, good guy. Martin 15:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 33) Support - give him his own mop! Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 16:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 34) Support. If the fine job he has done as an editor is any indication, I think he will make a fine editor. He appears to have good judgment and a pleasant demeanour that will be required as an admin. The objections regarding failing to warn vandals seems rather minor to me, given that no one is perfect and that adminship is no big deal. I also concurr with DarthVader and Blnguyen. Agent 86 18:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 35) Support the only reason to oppose is extremely unconvincing.  Grue   21:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 36) Support to balance out some of the silly oppose votes. --Carnildo 23:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 37) Jaranda wat's sup 01:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 38) Support I believe he will now warn vandals after this cruel process. GizzaChat  &#169; 05:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 39) Support per Carnildo (although I'm not certain that I concur in his use of silly; I am certain a more decorous phrasing could be found). On the nomination and candidate alone, I'd typically be neutral; here, though, I agree with many of the supporters that Sam will likely remedy the problems raised by the opposes, but, more importantly, because I so strongly disagree with several of the reasons for which others are opposing (my neutral would rest on altogether separate grounds), I think I must, like Carnildo, attempt to balance here.  Joe 05:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 40) Support; seems like a good editor. --Delirium 16:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 41) Full support. Excellent contributor, and I'm not convinced that a lack of vandal warnings is a good enough reason to believe that the candidate will abuse admin tools. To echo what BigDT said before, can anyone here really say they've warned every vandal they've reverted? I know I haven't.  Rob ert  21:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 42) Kusma (討論) 23:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 43) Support There is a surplus of vandals, but very few good contributors. After 19 reminders to warn vandals accordingly, I believe that Sam Vimes will take the necessary steps to correct this problem. -- Jay  (Reply)  03:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 44) Support per above. Nevermind2 09:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 45) Support I think after all the comments below, he is not likely to forget to warn vandals anymore, and given as that is just about the only complaint, see no reason he should have to wait a few months to renominate. -Goldom (t) (Review) 15:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 46) Support - with the feeling that half the oppose votes would have vanished if only he proclaimed loud and clear that he would use warnings regularly henceforth. Sam?? --Gurubrahma 13:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 47) Support. A committed, conscientious and courteous editor who will now, I'm sure, do his bit against vandalism. Johnlp 16:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 48) Support One doesn't have to use the test1-4 templates to be a good vandalism reverter. They help, but can be cumbersome from time to time.  They're no reason to oppose him getting admin.  -- Alphachimp   talk  20:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 49) Strong Support Enough already about vandal warning templates. This seems to be an extremely weak reason to deny admin tools to an excellent editor. FloNight talk  00:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 50) Strong Support as per Blnguyen, Sjakalle, and FloNight, and even more on the great interactions I've had with this user personally. He is a User Who Makes Wikipedia Better, and even more importantly vis-à-vis becoming an admin, he is a user who understands the Mission and has, does and will contribute to it.  (I would have supported earlier but somehow this AfD slipped through my radar in the last week.)  Moreover, it seems to me that the bulk of the criticism below is that Sam does a lot of great work with the fixing of the vandalism, but he just doesn't dot the i's and cross the t's with the warnings.  So, if it helps, think of him as that crusty and ill-spoken cop who hates to file paperwork and always has the captain riding his ass, but in the end always gets his man.  Like, say, Nick Nolte in 48 Hours...:)  Seriously, think of it this way:  the oppose votes of this type are effectively penalizing his bid, not in spite of his tireless anti-vandalism work, but in fact because of it!  Had he never fixed a lick of vandalism, many of the detractors would have nothing to hang their hats on. Anyway, my two cents.  -- Deville (Talk) 02:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 51) Support . I've had limited contact with Sam, but he's always been friendly and articulate, and his comments and edits well-considered. I also note that he is supported by a number of contributors in whose judgement I have complete faith. Snottygobble 03:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Changed to Strong Support because he takes the time to revert vandalism even when he's really busy adding content. Sheesh! Snottygobble 04:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - A valuable editor who will no doubt contribute a lot more to Wikipedia if admin powers are given. Just make sure you warn the vandals, though. - Tangot a ngo 09:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. I have only seen positive interaction from Sam, as well as wonderful contributions and a good attitude towards criticism. JPD (talk) 11:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Highly unlikely to abuse the tools! Z iggurat 22:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support For the reasons stated above. Mr. Turcotte  talk  00:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Major contributor to content, and I feel I know him well enough to feel confident that he would not to abuse admin tools.  No hesitation supporting.  Guettarda 01:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support but would like to see more project involvement and use of warnings. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 02:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support the individual knows by know to use warnings and I trust they'll do it in the future and besides that the individual has plenty of wonderful experience and dedication - Patman2648 03:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Weak support. Content specialist with good leavening of experience in other areas.  Vandalism warnings are a concern, but he has shown he can learn from suggestions, and I expect he'll warn vandals more reliably in the future. -- SCZenz 07:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Weak support per SCZenz and JzG.  Λυδ α  cιτγ  14:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Weak oppose please warn vandals after reverting their changes. Kimchi.sg 16:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Not everyone joined up to fight vandalism. In fact, hopefully nobody did, that's not what we're here for. I'm a poor RC patroller, but have fared fine as an administrator. I will never understand this clique-ish trend towards opposing fine, sensible people who haven't reached your level of vandal fighting, because they prefer to edit the encyclopedia's content. While I thank all vandal fighters for their diligence, that has absolutely no bearing on the editor's judgment. Dmcdevit·t 04:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose One thing that does annoy me on Wikipedia is those editors who are happy to rollback vandalism, or test edits, but will not then add any warning templates to the relevant users' talk pages. I've come across Sam on cricket articles, and he is a very dedicated editor, however I cannot support at the present time someone who fails to use warning templates correctly. I would be happy to support in the future if there was evidence of their correct use. --Wisd e n17 17:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Weak oppose per Wisd, I'm sorry but there's not really much point in reverting the usual vandal without warning them. I learnt this some time ago. Admins must know how to deal with vandalism properly, if you can't do the basic warnings to users while patrolling how will I know you can deal with vandals as an admin? You are a great editor but don't seem to be ready for it just yet.-- Andeh 17:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If Sam reads WP:VAN and acts upon it, I'll be more than happy to support his next RFA.-- Andeh 19:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Mildishly strong oppose not warning vandals damages the Wikipedia. Why? Because admins shouldn't block without prior warning, making it slower to ban some blatant vandals! Computerjoe 's talk 18:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, most of the reverts that Sam does are on cricket articles, and are not nonsense but rather deliberate misinformation - without content specialists like him, a lot of cricket vandalism would not be detected as they are not usually obscene vandalism which is picked up by bots - cricket does not seem to pick up the same hostile attention as politics. Which is another reason why content specialists should not be kept separate from this type of work - they can pick up misinformation-vandalism which a person manning Vandalproof or CDVF does not. So the slowing down of anti-vandal fighting is incorrect.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Week Oppose Ditto with Joe. Vandals needed to be warned so they are aware people are here to revert their edits and so that they could possibly become good editors. It also gives standing for admins to warrant blocks. Yanksox 18:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, given my different standards. I originally wasn't going to make a big fuss over the lack of use of the templates, but after further review, I see more not-so-pleasant things. Namely (p) over 11,000 edits, but fewer than 500 project edits (familiarity with the ins-and-outs?), fewer than 300 article talk page edits and fewer than 500 user talk page edits (people skills?), and an overemphasis on cricket / sports related pages. This is despite (d) a very large number of edits and many months of experience. As a side comment, I'm surprised by the fact that you have only eight minor edits in that past 500 contributions (I'm not opposing on those grounds of course). joturn e r 18:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I have to say wrt the comments on the sport, there is a a variety of different types of sports involved, across a wide historical era - I can recall articles about 19th century English cricket as well as contemporary cricket - as well as there being a wide global coverage of the sports involved. This would be about the same as many successful RfAs I have witnessed and supported where the candidate in question focused soley on one field, such as computer games, history/geography/politics/law of their country. As I said before, a lot of project edits are derived from "voting" on AfDs. Blnguyen | rant-line 00:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Can't find enough evidence that good use of admin tools will be made. Answers to questions worry me slightly. See my RfA criteria. I stress the first paragraph on that page. Petros471 21:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I have thoroughly reviewed the comments by supporters above and on my talk page. However, I do remain unconvinced. Admin status is not granted as a reward for good contributions (I'm not disputing that they are good, nor am I disputing that Sam is a great asset to Wikipedia). The test templates issue is a concern, but not the only one. Whilst I realise that the 'one vandal edit cases' warning is not always appropriate looking through contributions I saw many examples when warnings should have been given. Whilst the reply above by Blnguyen rightly points out that a lot of the reverts are to watchlisted articles (a very good thing, and it is extremely valuable to have editors doing that), I can't see any reports to WP:AIV of vandals needing to be blocked. I am not fully satisfied by the answer to Gwernol’s question, as it doesn’t (in my opinion) show a full understanding of the issues surrounding warning people. There are other things, but rather than me taking all day explaining please respect that I have considered this hard. I stress that this is not a reflection on Sam's abilities as an editor, which are greatly appreciated. I'm just not convinced that the time is right for Sam to be an admin. Sam: if you show more involvement in the admin areas of Wikipedia, I am very likely to support your next RFA, if this one does not reach consensus. If you don't, then please realise that if being an admin is 'no big deal', not being one isn't either. Petros471 10:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, does not warn vandals. RandyWang (raves/rants) 21:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per lack of vandal warnings. This attention to detail is crucial in adminship. Aguerriero  ( talk ) 23:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per Jo Turner, concerns raised re lack of vandal warning, and low project involvement. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 00:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak oppose - per lack of vandal warnings, keep warning vandals and you'll fly by next time -- Tawker 00:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Weak oppose per Tawker.--digital_m e (TalkˑContribs) 04:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Weak oppose for lack of warnings. I am sure the candidate has learned what to do. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 07:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per warnings, sorry. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 12:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Weak Oppose per issue of not warning vandals. Roy A.A. 19:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose per joturner, who makes an excellent case here. A large number of edits does not equate to administrative fitness if those edits do not show a well-rounded grasp of essential admin tasks (like talk-paging and projectspace experience.) Xoloz 01:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose Not warning vandals raises concerns about how the user would approach admin tasks TigerShark 23:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose. Fails Diablo Test Anwar 23:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This one I really feel I must comment on. See The Ashes, which I made major contributions to in May 2005, and was featured in June 2005. Sam Vimes 00:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Since May 2005, the article has changed significantly . Your name hardly crops up in the FAC then. Anwar 11:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Anwar, The Ashes as a FA, was a collaboration by a number of editors and Sam was certainly one of 3 or 4 major contributors at that time (and since). -- I@n &equiv; talk 01:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh no, you guys probably don't know Anwar too well. The Diablo Test is his excuse for opposing everyone, considering you received a lot of support from Indian members of WikiProject Cricket and the like, you cannot expect to get a support vote from Anwar.  Noble eagle  (Talk)  06:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know, after having corresponded with Anwar previously [woops!, did I say that out loud?] -- I@n &equiv; talk 06:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose due to warning issues and answer to Gwernol's question below. moink 01:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose due to warning problems - not because he doesn't use them (can't expect everyone to have the time to do it every revert), but because his answer to Gwernol's question before seems to suggest that he believes that warnings have no value. Certainly not a good quality in an admin. Cynical 12:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) *Is that really what Sam says? I read he says that warnings sometimes have no value.  Anyone who has done vandalism reverting for half an hour will work this out for themselves.  (Sorry to interject – not my normal style – but I feel it necessary to correct this misinterpretation.)  Sam Korn (smoddy) 20:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Neutral
 * Neutral Changed to Support Despite a very large number of contributions, seems to have a narrow range of interest and relatively little project-space involvement. Can't oppose on vandal-warning grounds because I agree that it's a bit of a waste to warn obvious one-off vandalism of the "Hi mom/Dan was here/Kelly is a jerk" variety that is the user's only contribution. Opabinia regalis 20:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) Neutral Although he has failed to warn vandals, his contributions to Wikipedia is immense. I feel that it is not right to oppose him on this account but I cannot give him my support as well because of the above-mentioned fallacy. If he starts, warning vandals, I would definitely support him in a few months time. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  01:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral I am not sure why he needs Admin tools. Concerns have been expressed about his vandalism reverts and he is not active in $fD.  Eluchil404 13:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral I would have supported, but not giving out the vandalism warnings didn't do you any favors. Hopefuly, you can learn from that and in a couple of months you can reapply and make admin. — The King   of Kings  20:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comments

User's lst 5000 edits. Voice -of- All  09:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC) --Viewing contribution data for user Sam Vimes (over the 5000 edit(s) shown on this page)-- (FAQ) Time range: 196 approximate day(s) of edits on this page Most recent edit on: 9hr (UTC) -- 14, Jun, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 8hr (UTC) -- 1, November, 2005 Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 99.49% Minor edits: 100% Average edits per day: 8.5 (for last 500 edit(s)) Article edit summary use (last 846 edits) : Major article edits: 99.76% Minor article edits: 100% Analysis of edits (out of all 5000 edits shown of this page): Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/sourcing): 1.28% (64) Minor article edits (small content/info/reference additions): 4.84% (242) Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 31.12% (1556) Minor article edits marked as minor: 5.99% Breakdown of all edits: Unique pages edited: 1938 | Average edits per page: 2.58 | Edits on top: 8.74% Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 80.58% (4029 edit(s)) Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 2.48% (124 edit(s)) Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 16.94% (847 edit(s)) Unmarked edits: 0.76% (38 edit(s)) Edits by Wikipedia namespace: Article: 77.54% (3877) | Article talk: 3.42% (171) User: 5.12% (256) | User talk: 4.16% (208) Wikipedia: 4.86% (243) | Wikipedia talk: 1.98% (99) Image: 0.1% (5) Template: 1.4% (70) Category: 0.88% (44) Portal: 0.1% (5) Help: 0% (0) MediaWiki: 0% (0) Other talk pages: 0.44% (22)
 * See Sam Vimes's edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool.




 * I'm sure that Sam does not need me to defend him - his actions speak for themselves. However, given the slew of "does not warn vandals" opposition, I think it would be useful to know (a) how often Sam has reverted vandalism in, say, the last month or six months; and (b) how often he warns vandals when he does.  To be honest, I only warn vandals when there is a good reason, like I catch them doing it more than once, or it may become necessary to block.  Posting test messages to a drive-by single-article IP vandal is a waste of everyone's time.  But then I am not a hard-core RC junkie - I just patrol my watchlist. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

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:
 * Questions for the candidate
 * 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 probably help with matters requiring immediate attention on the Administrators' noticeboard, seeing as things occasionally do go unnoticed there even with the large amounts of people watching it. I would also like to help with deletion issues, particularly images, where I understand there is a large backlog. Sam Vimes 15:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A: I'm a longstanding member of WikiProject Cricket, where I have written several biographies, detailed accounts of cricket tournaments, and also contributed to statistical lists. I'm rather pleased with the way 2005-06 West Indian cricket season turned out - a well-referenced article which only really lacks pictures. The same goes for 2005-06 Australian cricket season. Outside of cricket, I also think the article on Heggedal, a small settlement near where I live, turned out nicely after someone had written a hagiographic and false account of the place initially. Sam Vimes 15:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * 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: When I first started out, I was perhaps a little overenthusiastic in my article-writing, and had quite a few of my articles listred for deletion, which culminated in the mass nomination of them all Articles_for_deletion/Cricket_matches_articles. However, they were all merged into individual articles on the season in the end, after some debate, and I think I have learned valuable lessons about referencing and neutral writing from that. Sam Vimes 15:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Optional question from Gwernol:
 * 4. You often revert vandalism without following up with a warning to the vandal's talk page. Could you tell me why? And could you tell me when its appropriate to use ...? Thanks.
 * A: I suppose there's not much I can do but to admit this - occasionally I revert vandals where no warning has proved to help (see the history of Darryl Strawberry and warnings on several IPs). However, this shows that I have been using test templates for quite some time - and I will admit that I have not been very active in recent changes patrol in the last four months (though checking my edit summaries for reverts will show the exact number)
 * As for the exam question:
 * test1: Light test edits which do little harm, such as "Adam was here".
 * test2: "Nonsense", long lines of incohererent text ("zzyxyx...") or inappropriate images. Most first-time offences.
 * test3: After repeat occurrences after a test1/test2 warning, or after an instance normally worthy of test1/test2 but with history of prior warnings.
 * test4: After a repeat occurrence after a test3 warning, or after an instance normally worthy of test2 but with history of prior blockings. Sam Vimes 17:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

DriniQuestion
 * Do you think admins performing actions (deletions, blocks) for reasons not covered on policy should be sanctioned? If so, how? -- Drini 20:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the efforts to write policy to cover all eventualities, there will be times when doing the right thing for the encyclopedia involves doing an action not covered explicitly by policy. Therefore, I don't think such actions should automatically be sanctioned, but decisions should instead be made when the community or the Arbitration Committee finds the action unacceptable. Sam Vimes 21:01, 13 June 2006 (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.