Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Seth Ilys

User:Seth Ilys
I've been thinking long and hard about this; particularly whether I should nominate myself and whether I should do so, especially so soon after my hasty refusal of a nomination last month. I value Wikipedia both as a resource and as an open community, which was one of the reasons the intital missteps by the arbitration committee troubled me so deeply. But since then, especially in being active on the #wikipedia IRC channel, my faith in the community as a supportive network has been entirely restored. I'm still outspoken on a number of matters, but I'm thrilled to be a part of a group like this where diversity (of many forms) is both valuable and appreciated.

So I want to step up to the plate further and be more useful as an admin, specifically by helping combat vandalism and handle speedy deletions (I spend a good deal of time monitoring newpages) without having to refer those tasks to others. I've been here since 22 December 2003 and have accumulated over 5500 edits; I've tried to be reasonable and not act rashly when perturbed. Once I find full-time employment (which I hope is soon), my activity level will certainly scale back a bit, but I don't plan to leave; Wikipedia is too much fun... -- Seth Ilys 01:29, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Support:
 * 1) Perl 01:33, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) I supported Seth last time. I will this time too. Kingturtle 01:39, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. We could use dedicated admins now more than ever. &rarr;Raul654 01:56, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Seth appears to have a very good understanding of Wikipedia despite his short time here and I think he is more than capable of being a good admin. Angela. 01:59, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Support.  fabiform | talk 02:21, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. Assuming he doesn't intend to refuse this nomination. ;-) Excellent editor, will make a fine admin. Jwrosenzweig 16:19, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. Stewart Adcock 17:59, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC) (And, good luck with the job hunt!)
 * 8) Support. I have frequently followed him around deleting stuff he has added the delete msg to...so he'd be good for that kind of work, for sure! Adam Bishop 19:43, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) Michael Snow 20:47, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. Already thought he was an admin. Davodd 00:39, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. Danny 02:45, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 12) Support. Kosebamse 19:41, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 13) Support. Seems quite helpful, hard-working and sympathetic. Pfortuny 19:46, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 14) Support. Excellent editor and picture finder. - MykReeve 22:55, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 15) Support. Very good editor.  RadicalBender 01:42, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 16) Support. Martin
 * 17) Support. Decumanus 00:10, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 18) Support. Seth has a great attitude and work ethic. - Mark 02:24, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 19) Support. Definitely an asset to Wikipedia. BCorr ¤ &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 04:51, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * 20) Support. Maximus Rex, 09:09, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 21) Support. Elf-friend 18:25, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 22) Support - Texture 06:17, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 23) I'm re-moving my vote to support. Seth Ilys is a very good Wikipedian, and I might be better off taking up my nit-picking issues with him on his talk page. Ludraman | Talk 07:54, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 24) Support. -- Cyan 21:03, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 25) Hadal 07:31, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 26) Support.  Excellent editor and contributor. Rdash 08:52, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * 27) Fennec 16:52, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Neutral:
 * 1) Support> Ludraman | Talk 10:05, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * In the phrasing of Ned Flanders: I don't mean to be a negative neddy and all, but Seth Ilys might be a tad too quick in speedy-deleting some new pages, which given a chance often improve. Not that I'm against his sysophood, he's fairly very good otherwise. Ludraman | Talk 21:31, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear; I'm not an admin yet, so there's no way that I could have deleted any pages. I believe that what Ludraman is referring to is my placement of the message on some articles. -- Seth Ilys 02:16, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Just placing on an article does not mean you are responsible for its deletion. If every time a user adds the tag to the page is called into question, then vandalism cleanup teams will stop doing their jobs and Wikipedia will become overrun with junk. - Mark 02:24, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)