Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sceptre


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

Sceptre
final (40/9/1) ending 22:25 January 12, 2006 (UTC)

been a contributor to Wikipedia since May 2005, and more recently, a frequent valuable contributor since October 2005, fulfilling the defacto 3+ month tenure before a sysop nomination here at Wikipedia. In his time here, he has worked extensively in counter-vandalism, more specifically in chores such as RC patrol. Despite the fact that he only has close to 3500 edits, his track record shows qualities that would make him a good administrator. I am confident enough that Sceptre would make a quality janitor here, which is why I have put forward a nomination for him to become an Administrator. --Jay (Reply) 21:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC) Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:


 * This was a hard decision for me, but i'll Accept  Sceptr e  ( Talk  ) 22:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Support Oppose
 * 1) Support - I don't know why but I assumed that he was on already. Hmmm. --Cel e stianpower háblame 22:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Weak support. I am not sure about this user but he looks all right. &mdash; J I P  | Talk 22:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support thought he was already one. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 22:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. --  Phædriel  *whistle* 23:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Would make a good janitor. --Jay (Reply) 23:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) King of All the Franks 23:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support good editor --rogerd 00:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Wikipedia needs RC patrols! Admin status would help him with rollbacks and speedies. &mdash;  M ATHWIZ 20 20  T ALK 00:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support, unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. Why the heck not? Matt Yeager 01:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support, looks good. &mdash;Kirill Lok s hin 01:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Muito bem  ε  γκυκλοπ  αίδεια  *  02:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Support. Looks like the type of dynamic yet nice admin we need more of.--Alabamaboy 02:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Support -- Francs2000 [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px| ]] 02:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Support. I don't doubt this user has the ability to use admins tools properly. JHMM13 (T | C) [[Image:Flag of the United States.svg|25px| ]] [[Image:Flag of Germany.svg|25px|  ]] 05:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Support been looking over this off and on and have decided there is no reason to oppose.--MONGO 06:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Support --Terence Ong Talk 09:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Support - Sango  123   (talk)  22:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Support See num 16. As have I! I'm squeezing this vote in before I go cook dinner :-P Knowledge Of  Self  |  talk  22:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Support --Jaranda wat's sup 22:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Support --NaconKantari 23:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) Support. Great admin material. SoLando (Talk) 23:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 23) Support. Lots of edits in Wikipedia namespace. I see him a lot around here and that's really good. He got so many Rfa thank-yous that he had to create a whole seperate subpage for them. That speaks volumes. Solid editor. Give him the Sacred Mop. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 01:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 24) Support (I really like the user-friendly user page...) jnothman talk 12:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 25) Support Helpful in Wikipedia. Would make a good admin.--Ali K 13:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 26) Support Seen him reverting quite some vandalism, doing a great job -- Sneltrekker 22:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 27) Support Sure. --Chris S. 09:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 28) Support. - Mailer Diablo 10:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 29) Support Izehar 18:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 30) Support. WikiFanatic 20:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 31) Support. PJM 01:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 32) Support. Someone should have poked me so I could've got here earlier! → Fir e  Fox  13:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 33) Support. Seems like a winner. -Colin Kimbrell 22:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 34) Support as per nominator. Hall Monitor 00:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 35) Support. I agree with Jay. Great RC patrolling goes hand-in-hand with great administrating.  --Allen 03:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 36) Support. Good contributor. &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 05:57Z 
 * 37) Support per FireFox. Comment: Since Admin tools are most useful to combat vandalism, I fail to see the rationale of those who are opposing based upon a record of "Too much" (!?!) vandal fighting. A bit nonsensical, that. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 38) Support. Would make a great administrator.&#160;—  The KMan  talk  05:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 39) Strong Support. Would have been a plain support, but seems to be attracting a number of baseless oppose votes. the wub "?!"  RFR - a good idea? 12:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 40) Support Trustworthy editor. Xoloz 19:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Too many userboxes. --Pjacobi 19:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't really see why this should be a reason to oppose. FireFox has 72 userboxes, and this hasn't impeded his ability to administrate one bit.  Sceptr e  ( Talk  ) 19:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Sceptre. If you think that Sceptre is going to neglect his admin tasks because he's going to be fiddling with his userboxes all day, then you're most probably wrong. → Fir e  Fox  13:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah well, he opposed, and we most likely won't change his mind. Even the best RfAs have had one or two opposes.  Sceptr e  ( Talk  ) 16:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per discussion on IRC. I think admins should try to be able to make a case for their arguments or assertions with more weight that "well, thats what I think". - FrancisTyers 20:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Looks like an exemplary editor, but I don't agree with three-month adminships. Try next month. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I see where you are coming from, but seriously now, after 3500 contributions and solid work for 3.5 months, what makes him any more prepared on Feb. 1st than he is right now? The prejudgement of a contributor solely based on "3 month" and "4 month" experience alarms me, simply because it is a belief that one is more ready after a predetermined calendar date. What do you say to the Wikipedian who says 6 months, or a year, rather than 4 months? Consistent quality of work, not quantity of calendar dates. We're not baking a cake here.--Jay (Reply) 23:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Respectfully oppose. Following the advice to look into his track record, I see the person is 90% busy with reverts and other cleanup. I am afraid that this indicated a certain mindset of a warrior and tough guy, rather than encyclopedia contributor. Constant policing does not improve negotiation skills and may produce a false impression of being always right. Please forgive me if I am wrong, but this editor must have more of different experience. Mukadderat 18:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Reverts and cleanup? So you find those to be areas that don't offer this experience that you're looking for in an admin, and in the process, you have just denounced quite a few respectable admins. To deem someone who spends their time cleaning up vandalism on Wikipedia that you won't as a "warrior" or "tough guy," is a heavy blow. Sysop privilleges, in my opinion, are very efficient tools than can be used to reduce vandalism and prevent it from reoccurring, and should not be preconceived as a trophy for writing featured articles or having one million contributions. I forgive you, but I must say that you're a wrong on this one. --Jay (Reply) 23:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, vandal fighting and fixing double redirects is good, of course, but I went through the contribs and didn't see many substantial edits to articles. Sorry, but I don't think you're ready just yet. - Bobet 22:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * As I said earlier, sysop rights mustn't be confused with the nobel prize. They are tools that are only useful in fighting vandalism, and aren't a trophy for being an exemplary editor or author. --Jay (Reply) 23:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * He's not applying at a "request for editingship". As to the previous comment, Special:Contributions/Drini -- ( drini's page &#x260E;  ) 23:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, don't take it the wrong way. I looked at his edits, all of the last 500 are marked minor. Since he doesn't have that many edits to start with, I don't feel sure he knows enough about the workings to become an admin. - Bobet 00:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Being marked minor is a given because it is a bulk of vandal patrol, and I have my edits on auto-minor, even if I've added a paragraph. And as of now, he has 370 fewer edits than you do, so I hope you don't use that to vote against yourself in a RfA. And could you elaborate on "the workings." --Jay (Reply) 00:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak oppose per above. --doN&#39;t belieVe in CensOrshIp 13:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, blatantly anti-American. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Come to Britain for a week, and you'll see a lot of anti-american people. I, however, don't have anything against America except the language.  Sceptr e  ( Talk  ) 21:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Why should political opinions/views have anything to do with having access to anti-vandalism tools? This isn't a vote for if you like him or not.For arguments sake, I personally find him smelly, and he never uses toothpicks after tea; he is also semi-anti-Greenlandic . However, he'd still make a good admin. --Jay (Reply) 22:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Just recall that adminship is not just about fighting vandals. Your comments seem to imply that the only use for the sysop bit is for whacking vandals. -- ( drini's page &#x260E;  ) 00:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * So what is the problem with that? What else is it for? Yes I know it states that "administrators are the 'official' face of Wikipedia" on the previous page, however tell me, what are tools such as: the ability to delete pages, protect pages, and block users good for? Detering vandalism. Although my comments push that sysop privilleges are only good for "whacking" vandals, I still stand by my view that adminship is not about a contributors personal opinions or views (which really we're all entitled to have because we're human) and is rather a tool to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of their anti-vandalism contributions. Even you said "He's not applying at a request for editingship." --Jay (Reply) 03:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * AfD Closes are not "fighting vandalism" and are one of his stated intentions. IMO they require a bit more experience than clasic anti-vandal work does. DES (talk) 22:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose due to short time on Wikipedia. Despite making a large number of edits in that time, I think a longer time is needed to learn about how the community works before becoming an admin.Johntex\talk 01:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It is quarter to 3 in the morning in the United Kingdom, so I guess I'll have to cover for him. I see where you're coming from, but exactly how many months, and how many more contributions would you suggest Sceptre gains to "learn how the community works." I've already penned my concerns with contrib-time standards, so I ask you this: Does Sceptre waiting "a longer time" for sysop tools supercede his potential access to sysop privilleges within the next 24hrs to curb vandalism and the like? I 'd rather have one more admin, one-thousand fewer vandal edits, and thus a marginally better Wikipedia than a potential admin waiting until who knows when.--Jay (Reply) 03:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You present a False choice by assuming he will fight one-thousand fewer vandal edits without adminship. One does not need adminship to fight vandals.  On the other hand, a hastily created admin, if they act innapropriately or foolishly, could do far more damage to the credibility of the project since people look up to admins.  Please understand that I am not saying Sceptre would abuse the community's trust, I am just replying to your question.
 * I simply feel that people need to be here for quite some time prior to becoming admin in order to (a) have a long enough track record to provide good evidence of their work and character (b) have had time enough to learn the ropes (c) make it extremely unlikely that they are not a sockpuppet or newly returned banned user (d) have had the opportunity to contribute to policy discussions and to watch polices and the community evolve a bit. These things don't usually happen in a very short time, even if the user is very active over that short time. Johntex\talk 20:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose due to short time on wikipedia. IMO more experience is needed for a) kknowing when to actualy push that delete button and b) handling AfD closes; among other things. Looks like a good editor though and i will probably support any re-nom in a month or two. DES (talk) 22:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutral Comments
 * 1) Neutral Concerned about potential POV issues via his userpage. Also concerned he may need more experience in real life. Am willing to wait and see where this goes. Eluchil  11:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you show me where? The only POV issue is the global warming one at a stretch, and maybe "The Aussie Asshole"  Sceptr e  ( Talk  ) 13:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Isn't POV a given on one's user page? --Jay (Reply) 22:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Edit summary usage: 97% for major edits and 99% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and Talk namespaces. Mathbot 23:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I would like to say that I'm first overwhelmed that someone has nominated me, and with the unilateral support. 17/0/0 in 20h is marvelous, and I thought that'd I'd get a few opposers by then.  Sceptr e  ( Talk  ) 17:23, 6 January 2006 (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 check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
 * A. I'd help on the article side, AfD closing and deleting, etc. I'd also be quite active around VIP.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. I'm rather pleased with my work towards Halifax, West Yorkshire, and some work on ongoing TV programmes in Britain, e.g., The Christmas Invasion, and The X Factor (television series)


 * 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 got into one today (5/1/06) with an anon IP on the article Jewfro, which he broke the 3RR rule, and I slightly may have tread on reverting his edits. I've also got into a conflict over Pendolino - more specifically that someone put a section about it's slang name which sounded like an immature edit.


 * Only one user has caused me stress, and that was 203.51.253.198, and that was caused by calling me " a 14 year old jew who thinks i'm a 1337 haxor, but just sucks Barney's purple dick". The user vandalised my user page 14 times before he was blocked, but I did crack under that stress plus more in real life, and made a nasty attack on him. I do apologise for that.
 * 4.What is the candidate's view on Process is Important? asked by DES (talk)
 * I agree with the page as I try to keep in line with as much process as I can as a reguser. I agree that Process is important, and WP:IAR should not take top priority  Sceptr e  ( Talk  ) 00:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.