Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sfoskett


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

Sfoskett
Final (43/6/1) ended 15:17 28 October 2005 (UTC)

– Recently surpassing the 17-thousand edit mark, Stephen Fosketts is one of very few contributors who are part of the 15,000 club without sysop privileges. Since May 2004, Stephen has made a difference by providing a remarkable number of automobile-related photographs to Wikipedia under the GFDL or as public domain, correcting article inaccuracies, and reversing vandalism when necessary; he's also an invaluable contributor to WikiProject Automobiles. I believe User:Sfoskett has proven to be an exceptional member who will not abuse administrative powers and proudly give him my full support. Hall Monitor 21:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept this nomination, somewhat reluctantly. I did not seek admin rights, and will not use them much, but would appreciate them.

Support
 * 1) Support user has a crazy large edit count and seems to be doing everything in their power to make wiki better...  ALKIVAR ™[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 10:33, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - I'd trust Hall Monitor's nod even if I didn't happen to know that Sfoskett has all the ingredients of a positive admin force for Wikipedia. BD2412  talk 16:19, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Stephen's modesty is really something to admire.  Hall Monitor 16:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support Privat  e   Butcher  16:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Support deserves the recognition  Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk   17:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. --NormanEinstein 18:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - giving admin powers to someone who will barely use them isn't a problem; we should be concerned only if they'll use them inproperly. 15000 solid edits tell me that he won't.--Scimitar parley 18:15, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - he has made a very solid contribution to Wiki and it appears that admin powers will only assist him to continue to make a contribution. --D-bot 23:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Michael Snow 20:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Merovingian (t) (c) ( e ) 23:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Support The answers to the first question are reasonable and show honesty and sincerity. Has a huge track record of solid contributions and whenever he breaks away from adding content to this Encyclopedia and performs some admin duties we'll be the better for it. Rx StrangeLove 00:37, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. We're much better off having a careful and honest admin than someone who feels they have something to prove.  Bahn Mi 01:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Support So what if this nominee isn't planning on hanging around WP:AfD. MONGO 01:22, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Strong Support we need as many trusted, experienced users to be admins as possible, even if they don't use it much. If in his normal article editing, he sees something that needs an admin, he will already be there with the power --Rogerd 01:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Strong support, with milk Dear god, we should be ashamed of ourselves, not having given this guy adminship before! Who cares if he spends hours vandalhunting, if he blocks one vandal a month, that's one user left the rest of you guys need to deal with. gkhan 01:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) On one hand, why give him admin privileges if he won't use them? On the other hand, why not? Andre ( talk ) 02:20, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) It's better to have a person that we trust being an admin just in case. We don't "need" vandal fighting admins (though it is a great help) but that's not all adminship is about. The spirit of adminship (IMO) is that the community trusts you enough to give you extra power to help deal with situations that might require them. Hell, the more admins we can trust, the better. Sasquatch  t|c 03:19, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Support. I do symphatize with his position on the use of admin powers. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 03:31, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Support Better to underuse admin powers than to abuse them. Borisblue 06:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) Support. User has over 15,000 edits and the only complaints, as I far as I can see, are that he feels like he can make most of his contributions to Wikipedia without additional powers, which I feel that most users should be able to do. If the User finds his admin powers useful when dealing with vandalism on some of the many articles on which he works, then it is in the best interest of Wikipedia to give him the extra powers, even if he is not required to use them often.--Kewp (t) 10:20, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) Can definitely be trusted with admin-tools. Shanes 14:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) Support - It is amazing to see that we have a number of volunteer administrators who essentially work "full time" on this project. Sometimes it is nice to have more administrators who can dedicate that sort of time and energy to the project. However, we have to remember that we are primarily promoting users who are trustworthy, who can be ambassadors for the community, and who can help out whenever they can at their leisure. 17,000 edits is a tremendous amount of dedication to the project. This user is a thoroughly competent and trustworthy Wikipedian, and there is no reason to suspect that any of the administrative functions if given would be misused. This is a user who is exceptionally observant, and would clean up after the dangling ends we may occasionally miss or forget sometimes. For example, it could be things like adding missing protection tags to pages, deleting unsourced pictures, fixing page histories, and processing requested moves. --HappyCamper 14:41, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) Support Seems like a very reasonable candidate, I'm not concerned about not using admin powers often. Tuf-Kat 17:10, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 20) Support. Obviously. If he only seldomly blocks and protects, then so what? As already said, better underused than abused. He is trustworthy, period. Voice of All  @ ''' 17:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 21) Support, though please do keep in mind what Mendel said in his vote. While normally I'm not likely to support users with few WP: namespace edits, his edit count is impressive, and being active here for 17 months and >17000 edits shows tremendous dedication to this project. --Idont Havaname 18:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 22) Support; good lord. Not doing a ton with the tools doesn't mean that they don't deserve them.   Ral  315   WS  21:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 23) Support. If six oppose voters haven't yet managed to come up with a good reason for opposing, it's safe to say there isn't one. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:22, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 24) Support Per IRC cabal --Ryan Delaney talk 08:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 25) Support. KHM03 10:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 26) Fir  e  Fo  x  13:07, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 27) Support although I don't know 'em. V  /  M  19:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 28) Support. No convincing reason was given to oppose. Admins have access to some tools, they are not obligated to use them. Let's see if there are any good reasons to support..., plenty of good work, has demonstrated trustworthiness and has a great amount of experience. Sjakkalle (Check!)  12:41, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 29) Support, thought he already was one and I want to cancel out one of the oppose votes. the wub  "?!"  13:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 30) Support, per Chris Parham, Sjakkalle and Happy's comments. I am particularly mystified by suggestions that his recent break should in any way be counted against him—the guy has made 17,000 non-harmful edits, and in my book he's perfectly entitled to take a break for personal reasons momentarily. The only possible area of concern is his extremely limited participation in the WP namespace, involvement in which often indicates interest and familiarity with the workings of WP and related policy matters which are important for admins. However his positive attributes and obvious good sense convince me that he'll spend the necessary time to learn up these things before employing any new buttons he might receive. enceph  alon  19:52, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 31) Support - the desire not to use the admin powers once gained doesn't bother me, after all adminship is not supposed to be a big deal -- Francs2000 [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px| ]] 21:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 32) Support. I didn't express interest in using admin powers much either in my RfA, but ended up using them rather extensively. We need all the help we can get, and if the powers are used seldom, nothing was lost. El_C 21:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 33) Support. I actually thought Sfoskett was an admin from when I first came here, but now that I've seen that he isn't a mod and has made a large number of edits, I support him. --ApolloBoy 23:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 34) Support --Kefalonia 08:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 35) Support. Using the admin tools appropriately once in a while is better than not at all, right?  Friday (talk) 15:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 36) Support. He deserves the tools whether he uses them as much as others or not. -- DS1953 talk 16:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 37) Support Johann Wolfgang 17:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 38) Support.  Grue  13:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 39) Support Just because someone won't be a terribly active admin doesn't mean they shouldn't have the powers. It's not a zero-sum game.  Giving more people more tools to make this place better can only make this place better, even if those tools aren't used all that often by a particular person.  There is no harm in less-active admins.  Tedernst 18:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 40) Support - using them occasionally is enough. --Cel e stianpower háblame 19:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose per Durin's comments. Plus, I dont think that I can support someone who isnt necessarily desirious of sysop powers; we need more active admins. You can decline the nomination until you feel you are ready.  Or an   e   (t)  (c)   (@)  16:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, sorry I've changed my vote. I guess I didn't read clearly since I just saw "I accept this nomination, somewhat reluctantly. I did not seek admin rights, and will not use them much, but would appreciate them.", we don't need admins that will barely use admin powers. Admins are needed to be active and stop trolls, vandals, etc.  Privat  e   Butcher  17:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your concerns and have responded here. Hall Monitor 17:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I think you would find that a large number of my historic edits are for reverting vandalism. However, I have not had much time for that in the last few months.  See below.  --SFoskett 20:01, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * PB, I'd rather have someone trusted to use admin powers doing so occasionally instead of not having them at all. Consider it this way - suppose you have $50,000 in the bank, and someone offers you a gift of cash, but it's only $50.  Do you turn it away because it's too little?  Even if Sfoskett makes minimal use of admin powers, any use he does make will surely benefit Wikipedia, so why deny him (and the rest of us) even a minimal benefit?  BD2412  talk 20:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) --Boothy443 | comhrá 21:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose based on the bizarre answer to question 1. freestylefrappe 22:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Bizarre? How so? It just seems modest and restrained to me. --Michael Snow 23:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree, seems like a perfectly reasonable answer. How is it bizarre? Rx StrangeLove 00:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It came off as a bad attempt at trying to appear moderate. If he doesnt want to be an admin, then he should withdraw. I've seen several rfas with the "i'm not gonna actually do anything so dont worry" statement. freestylefrappe 03:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, no offense to the editor, but if you're not going to use the powers "much at all" then I don't see a point or a reason to give them to you at all. Good editor to be sure, but why should we bother here? It's like telling the coach of a basketball team that you'll play, but if the ball is passed to you, you might not shoot it. K1Bond007 22:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * He also suggests that he would actually revert quite a bit of vandalism, which is a perfectly sufficient reason to make him an administrator. To continue the analogy, people who hog all the shots aren't good teammates either; he might be looking to pass the ball to someone who has a better shot. Think John Stockton. --Michael Snow 23:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * John Stockton didn't pass all the time, he stepped up and took the shot quite often. He was a team player. Theres a difference between assisting and not doing anything at all. He blatantly states "I do not see myself using any administrative priviliges much at all. I did not seek admin rights, and am ambivalent about having them." So why should we bother to support this? He's a very good editor, but if you don't want to take on administrative duties then you shouldn't have administrative powers. We need active admins. That's the point here. K1Bond007 23:32, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Administrative duties? What are those, aside from not misusing administrative privileges if you're going to use them? I'm not aware of any requirement that admins be "active" as such. --Michael Snow 23:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Rephrase to 'sysop chore' per the question below. I'm sorry. I'm not going to debate this much further so long as his answers go unchanged. We all have differing criteria. One of mine is that they will be active with 'sysop chores'. K1Bond007 00:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Respectful oppose. Awesome contributor, but why force adminship on someone more interested in making the encyclopedia better than defending it from vandals and such? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 10:30, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * So he could make Wikipedia even better? --ApolloBoy 23:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The admin tools are for fighting vandalism and intervening in disruptive behavior. They don't make it any easier to make the encyclopedia better, just protect it from the entropic forces that tend to make it worse. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 05:04, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) On one hand I'm not sure that a less-active admin wouldn't still improve Wikipedia, but I'd be concerned that without actively adminning it would be easy to miss out on best practices and policy refinements. &mdash; mendel ☎ 20:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments
 * Please use edit summaries more often. Only 56% use over last 5000 edits. --Durin 16:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * You're correct, I tend to skip comments for minor edits, even though this is sheer laziness! --SFoskett 20:01, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Since August 24 of this year, your contributions have virtually collapsed. Your average # of edits per day over the period from then to now is just 2.6 edits per day, with just 153 edits over the last 2 months. I'm not saying this is a reason to oppose (this is not a vote, but a comment). I'd like to see your explanation for this. --Durin 16:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I have had some personal/life commitments push Wikipedia to the back burner lately. I intend to continue contributing long term.  --SFoskett 20:01, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * How does this edit summary % work? Does that include minor(m) edits? What about edits to one's user page? Does it include edits to talk pages, where the person will have to open and read them anyway? Articles, off course, changes need summaries, as that he highly useful, but I don't know what the 56 includes. This could be editcountitis :). Voice of All  @ ''' 20:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The edit summary simply totals the number of edits for which there are edit summaries and divides by the number of total edits made by the editor to arrive at a percentage of total edits for which there are edit summaries. It includes edits marked as minor. It includes edits to one's own user pages. It includes edits to talk pages. Edit summaries are a useful tool in vandal fighting and editing in general. It is, in my opinion, important to include them for all edits, even minor ones. Please see this diff for further rationale. Note that there are possible dopplegangers of Sfoskett. Please see Edit summary as well. --Durin 20:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Please see Requests for adminship/Thames for some precedent on the "lazy admin". Circumstances are different though, so I'm not going to vote support on this one . Borisblue 06:40, 22 October 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. I do not see myself using any administrative priviliges much at all. I did not seek admin rights, and am ambivalent about having them.  The only reason I would accept these rights at all is so I could deal with vandals more effectively than my current route or reporting them and hoping for the best.  I would also appreciate the reversion ability, since that is something I do a lot of in the auto articles.
 * Update - I feel I must add to this answer. No, I do not anticipate becoming a troll/vandal hunter or spending hours reverting vandalism.  I am a contributor more than an editor - I have written well over 100 full articles (and far more stubs) and expect to continue to do so.  I was inclined to decline the nomination at first, but felt better of it and decided that it would be nice to have the admin powers to use occasionally.  If people only want to give adminship to people who will be active admins, then by all means oppose.  But if you want to help me be a more effective contributor then support.  I will continue to write articles either way.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. I am most pleased with my contributions to the articles about Ferrari cars, and Template:Ferrari vehicles in particular. Also, Mazda, Cadillac, and the British Leyland marques (see Template:British Leyland).  I have also done a large amount of work on automobile engines, including creating most of the articles in Category:Automobile engines.  Other contributions that I love include List of automotive superlatives, John Hancock Tower, and Old 97's.  All of these are examples of interesting topics that were not adequately covered before, or even covered at all as in the case of the engines.


 * 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 have been involved in a number of conflicts, including contentious ones as List of automotive superlatives and Hummer H2/Hummer. Throughout these, I attempted to maintain calm and rationality, however hard it may be.  I feel that by keeping our eyes on the prize, so to speak, of creating an encyclopedic work, we can diffuse tense situations through reasonable discussion and democracy.


 * 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.