Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sandstein


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

Sandstein
Final (58/3/1) Ended 21:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

has fended off two offers to nominate thus far, but cannot hold out for ever! Sandstein joined us at the very end of July 2005 and rapidly started contributing to both the encyclopaedia and AfD debates. Fluent in English, German and with some French, also active on de: (see his contribs there) as well as contributing many images to Commons (see here). As if that were not enough, your review of Sandstein's contributions will also reveal substantial vandal-fighting activity, work at Articles for Creation, numerous contributions to deletion debates and reviews, helping at the Reference Desk, Third Opinion and other work around the project, and still finding time to make valuable contributions to the encyclopaedia. In RL, Sandstein is a jurist, which may well explain the measured tone of his contributions to many debates, plus he knows how to use a firearm and (much more importantly) when not to. Summon the nearest bureaucrat, I say, and issue him with mops, wiki, each: one, sysops for the use of. Guy (Help!) 17:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Co-nomination: Given that I was the first one to ask Sandstein about nominating him for adminship, it is my pleasure to co-nominate him with Guy. I have crossed Sandstein's path many times on Wikipedia, not only because we have a topic of interest in common, but also because he seems to be at many places... There is not much I can add to Guy's compliments, except maybe to note that the many articles created by Sandstein are not just empty one-liners, but that many have resulted in Did you know? mentions. Back in May, I was already convinced that being a sysop would benefit both the encyclopedia (quite obvious) and himself (by making his housekeeping tasks simpler) — and I am even more convinced of this today. Schutz 13:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you, all of you who talked me into this, for your effort, your confidence and your friendly words. I accept the nomination. Sandstein 18:37, 23 November 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 do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
 * A: Initially, I anticipate helping out with processing AfD (and other XfD), PROD and CSD backlogs, as these are the administrative procedures I've been most active in so far. I'd be happy to help out on AIV and ANI as well, once I've learned the ropes as an administrator, and to provide general administrative support if asked to. Of course, the administrator tools are also convenient in dealing with everyday watchlist vandalism a bit more thoroughly. Due to the requirements of my day job, though, and because I do like contributing to articles a bit more than I like vandal-whacking, I unfortunately can't promise anything really out of the ordinary with regard to chores.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A: I generally write about whatever grabs my interest at the moment, so my main space contributions tend to be bite-sized articles that are, sadly, often far from being as polished as I would like them to be. Still, three articles in particular come to mind: Swiss Federal Council, which is mostly by me (and, yes, still needs more sourcing, but the good reference works are all booked out in the library...), as well as Vitra and Vitra Design Museum, the results of a brief cross-border trip a few months ago. I've also tried to collect my non-stub article creations on this page.


 * Because good illustrations are, in my opinion, almost as important to our project as brilliant prose, I also like to contribute photographs to under-illustrated articles, either by scouring Flickr for high-quality free-content photos or by going on Wikipedia photo safari by myself. This has resulted in a substantial number of Commons contributions, most of which I've been able to find a place for in an 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 like to think that I'm not easily stressed, and I can't recall being involved in any substantial content disagreements. There have been the sort of discussions that seem to flow naturally from being involved in deletion processes, but only one sticks in my mind: a lengthy series of interactions (some of them accessible via this RfC) with one user who took umbrage at my requests to be civil during AfD discussions (and who, funnily enough, kept referring to me as an administrator despite my statement to the contrary). At any rate, my impression is that Wikipedia's palette of consensus-oriented dispute resolution mechanisms are quite effective. I will certainly rely on them in any future disagreements, including those (if any) related to administrative actions on my part.

Optional question from  J o r c o g α 


 * 4. Why do you want to be an administrator?
 * A: I enjoy working on Wikipedia - so do we all, I suppose, or we wouldn't be here. More to the point, I've also found participating in some administrative tasks to be rather rewarding, and I think the administrator tools will be useful in helping out with them in a more effective manner, as noted in my answer to question one, above. Also, one major contributing factor to my (and probably others') Wikipediaholism is that the project is simply big enough that one can always find something new and interesting to do. That's true no matter if one is an administrator or not, of course – and that's also why it's not a big deal to me if I don't get to be one – but I do have the feeling that I'll be stumbling over new and interesting admin-type tasks in the same serendipitious manner should I do become one. Lastly, it's of course hard to deny that the measure of community recognition (however to qualify it) associated with this process is a rewarding fringe benefit in and of itself for someone who spends quite some time working on this project with this community. Sandstein 06:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * General comments


 * See Sandstein's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.



Discussion

Support Oppose Neutral
 * 1) As nominator, Guy (Help!) 18:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong Support. Interactions with the user leave me with an impression that he can be trusted with the tools. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per excellent noms and the candidate's strong record. Newyorkbrad 19:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - Hahnch e  n 19:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support A very good user. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  20:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Looks like a good admin-in-waiting. (aeropagitica) 21:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Strong Support. Thoughtful, intelligent, and nice. Complete trust. - crz crztalk 21:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The diff adduced by Tariq is equivocal, but even if interpreted in the worst light possible, still has absolutely no bearing on administrative ability. - crz crztalk 21:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support, good user. I recall observing Sandstein's fracas with a Clueless Aggressive Newbie which he refers to under 3, and admired his coolness under the erratic flailing and flaming from the touchy newbie. I took over shortly afterwards, as I thought the person was starting to need admin warnings, but found myself unable to be even close to as patient as Sandstein. Well done. Bishonen | talk 22:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support No problems here. =)  Nish kid 64  00:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, fills all criteria, and a seven-month old comment that has been apogized for just gives me more reason for support. -- Elar  a  girl  Talk 01:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Ter e nce Ong (C 01:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - FireSpik e Editor Review! 03:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Merovingian ※ Talk 03:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support A familiar username on AFD. Very good work, will make a fine admin.-- Hús  ö  nd  04:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Looks great.-- danntm T C 05:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support per Elaragirl. If he has the maturity to apologise, he's ready to make sysop. riana_dzasta 06:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support definitely, I offered to nominate Sandstein in October, but Guy and Schutz have done that well now. Yes, Sandstein would make an excellent admin. DVD+ R/W 07:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support, of course, as per my co-nomination. Schutz 07:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Of course. Lupo 08:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Sniper support Right on target. &rArr;    SWAT Jester    Ready    Aim    Fire!  10:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Weak support. I would prefer if you diversified a bit beyond AFD. ( Radiant ) 12:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Strong Support per Elaragirl and Riana. This guy knows what he's doing. Moreschi 16:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Support. --Ligulem 17:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 19:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Support John254 23:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Support Excellent editor with firm grasp of policy. Xoloz 23:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Support- Good Luck!  J o r c o g α  00:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Support looks like he will make a great admin. Dar-Ape 00:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) Support - per nom --T-rex 03:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 23) Support Near perfect record of excellence here on Wikipedia. Mop him!Sharkface217 04:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 24) Support. Appears to be a good editor and I believe will be a good admin as well. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjo e  10:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 25) Support. Excellent record. Shell babelfish 13:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 26) Support. Zaxem 13:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 27) Support Convincing answers and no problems at all. He is perfect admin material. Good luck. ← A NAS  Talk 14:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 28) Support no evidence that admin tools will be misused.--MONGO 16:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 29) Support Per nom, and comments here. Must TC 19:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 30) Strong support I've been consistently impressed by Sandstein's contributions. -- Samir धर्म 02:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 31) Support sounds good enough for me. I think the "free speech" issue is not worthy of an oppose. James086Talk 05:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 32) support --Dario vet 13:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 33) support comes with a good nomination, and looking over things it seems to be backed upMathmo 14:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 34) Support Good user all-around. Hello32020 15:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 35) --Rudjek 18:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 36) Support -- Agεθ020 ( ΔT  •  ФC ) 20:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 37) Support per above. Yankee Rajput 21:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 38) Support - familiar face on xfd. Bakaman Bakatalk  22:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 39) Support Honest, fair user with an excellent track record.Ganfon 23:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 40) SupportHas a good nice  excellent OUTSTANDING edit count.  K  yo cat  ¿Qué tal?♥meow! 03:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 41) Support Bernese government employee named *stein? How could we possibly say No? ~ trialsanderrors 06:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 42) Support Go for it. --  Szvest   Ω  Wiki Me Up ®  14:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 43) Appreciate, empathize, support, etc. ... aa:talk 20:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 44) Support Buck  ets  ofg  03:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 45) Support. I have no doubt Sandstein will be an excellent and fair administrator. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 18:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 46) Support I see no reason to oppose this candidate. Dionyseus 07:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 47) Support from me too. --Mereda 11:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 48) Support Why not? --Daniel Olsen 20:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 49) Support You're allowed to pile-on when it's positive, right? Looks to me like he'll be a good admin... IronDuke  04:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 50) 'Last minute pile on support seen very positive work, and should make a solid admin. MLA 07:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * --dario vet ^_^ (talk) 12:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC) - Duplicate !vote - Tangot a ngo 12:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Well spoken, thoughtfull. Doesn't get his feathers ruffled. Good editor. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim  14:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose has demontrated opposition to free speech in the RFC he cites in his third question. I would rather not have another administrator with this problem. KazakhPol 22:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that the right to free speech (at least in the United States) is guaranteed as a right which can not be infringed upon by the government. Wikipedia is a privately owned site (e.g., not owned or operated by the government) and there are no policies which guarantee the right to free speech here. While editors are generally allowed this right, there are cases where Wikipedia, as a privately owned site, restricts the rights of people to post certain things that they might be able to post other places. So, an editor's stance on freedom of speech should have nothing to do with whether they might do a good job as an administrator. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjo e  10:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Er, just for the record even though it may not be necessary – what Nihonjoe says is completely true, but apart from that, of course I do support freedom of speech as a legal and philosophical concept (it's what makes Wikipedia possible, too!) and I can't imagine why KazakhPol thinks I don't. Sandstein 11:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Looking at it quickly, I see endorsement of the position that a particular user should be more civil in discussing one subject area. Unless I'm missing something egregious, that's a long way away from "opposition to free speech." Newyorkbrad 23:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This was the RFC against DR1819, one of the more tenacious and tendentious editors I have come across. His edits were egregious soapboxing, freedom of speech doesn't enter into it, the edits were prohibited by policy.  Guy (Help!) 00:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Nihon I am not sure why you posted that lengthy lecture on free speech, but I really, really do not care. I am not about to change my vote. The statement that: "an editor's stance on freedom of speech should have nothing to do with whether they might do a good job as an administrator" demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of what an administrator does. KazakhPol 22:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well I'm not sure of Sandstein's qualifications but I do know that Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech. (→ Netscott ) 22:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose: per User:Tariqabjotu and his this comments . Tariq might change his vote in support but I will keep my opposition. I do not support people who think we should be feeling less and should hide our affection for being admin. We could be neutral, nice and good human beings even whatever religion we choose or whatever we decide to put on our user-pages. --- ALM 19:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose: I have experienced this user to be prejudiced against some topics, even thereby disregarding Wikipedia policy, and as somebody who values a diverse encyclopedia, this is of some concern. Wikipedia is not a hobby horse for particular opinions, it is an encyclopaedia. In Articles for deletion/Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet(2nd nomination), he argued for deletion on flimsy grounds, i.e. because of WP:BIO (not a valid criteria, just read the full page), he made libelous remarks on living people ("esoteric mumbo-jumbo") and said that articles on her books are "generally best characterised as pieces of advertising". Now I haven't read any of her books, and there are many books that I don't value at all, but to characterize a wikipedia article on a a person or a published book as "advertizing" or "cruft" betrays prejudice. He also calls articles about her or her books a cruft-fest and a a walled garden of Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet-related esoteric cruft. After deleting her published books and her biography, apparently every reference in other articles (unrelated to the AFD) were deleted as well in a very indiscriminate manner. I had nothing to do with the history of this article, but even I, who am not an expert on Aurobindo or Astrology, have heard about Patrizia, and her published books are available in libraries and on Amazon.com. After reading about the deletion on kheper.net, I have created a new article on the subject, and only some minutes later it was marked by Sandstein for Criteria for speedy deletion. He also seems not to create or expand any articles, his main tasks seems to be voting on AFD's. This user does not seem to be tolerant to articles on certain topics, and has only just recently misinterpreted Wikipedia policy. --Mallarme 15:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC) The user sill misinterprets Wikipedia policy and says that the subject does not meet WP:BIO's standard for authors: "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work". However, the same page has this to say: "This guideline is not Wikipedia policy (and indeed the whole concept of notability is contentious)." "This is not intended to be an exclusionary list; just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted." She is clearly a published author, and her notability must be judged by comparing her to other astrologers or like writers, where I think she is notable. (It so happens that for some people a published author and religious leader like PNB is more notable than a person who is famous because he manufactured printed toilet paper in Germany (like Manfred van H., an article mostly written by Sandstein) :) )  --Mallarme 17:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't see anything inappropriate in Sandstein's AfD comments or the comments he has made since. As he has explained to you, if you feel the AfD was flawed, you need to take it to deletion review, rather than reposting the material. Sandstein's tagging of your repost was entirely appropriate. Your argument about policy, guidelines, notability etc belongs in deletion review, not an RfA. In regard to your claim that Sandstein does not "create or expand any articles," some of the articles he has written are listed here. He has also contributed extensively in numerous other areas of Wikipedia and Commons and I feel your characterisation is extremely unfair and incorrect. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 19:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Making libelous comments on living people (like for example "esoteric mumbo-jumbo" or "walled garden of Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet-related esoteric cruft") is not something I value in a Wikipedia admin, and I wouldn't consider to label such remarks as "appropriate". Looking at his contributions, I saw that many of them were in AFD votes, but he also seems to have made some good edits. However, in an RFA I must take into account the overall picture, which in my opinion was deficient. --Mallarme 20:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd be inclined to let this thread speak for itself, but I guess I have to say something when confronted with unfounded allegations of libel. In the AfD at issue, I commented on the encyclopedic quality and content of the articles about and her books, and certainly not on her as a person. Sandstein 21:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe libel is not the right word (English is not my first language), but "this mumbo-jumbo" (applied to the content of an article of one of her books, a "walled garden of Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet-related esoteric cruft" (applied to articles about her books or org's), "esoteric mumbo-jumbo", "pieces of advertising", etc. leave the impression, that the comments are not only applied to the articles, but also to the person and her writings. I just think that an admin should use more impartial language.--Mallarme 22:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral For the most part, I like what I see, but it would take me awhile to support anyone that has made this kind of backhanded prejudiced statement. I know someone is going to say this is revenge for a !vote against me, but I won't be entertaining those types of responses. --  tariq abjotu  19:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand what you mean, and I'm certainly not taking your comment as revenge. I did mean what I said (and nothing else), but I do apologise if you took personal offense. Looking back, I do see my concerns were rather silly (as I have said already). Sandstein 19:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If that's the worst you have to face, then you're in the clear, I think. Yes, you could have phrased it better, but it was a legitimate concern (even if others might not have shared it), plus your followup on the second RFA was pretty good. I don't believe we require admins to be plaster saints, only to be willing to admit their mistakes and learn from them. Guy (Help!) 15:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't believe we require admins to be plaster saints, only to be willing to admit their mistakes and learn from them. Right; that's why it was not an oppose, but a neutral, which ultimately has next to no effect on the outcome of the RfA. --  tariq abjotu  18:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed. You stated your case fairly without malice, which is no more than those of us who have seen you about would expect. A Neutral from you is almost an endorsement under the circumstances :-) Guy (Help!) 22:25, 26 November 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.