Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Starblind

Starblind
final (43/10/4) ending 17:30 6 July 2005 (UTC) Starblind (who also signs as Andrew Lenahan) has been with Wikipedia since January 2005. He has made (according to Kate's Tool) 2586 edits, and is very active at Votes for deletion. I've found him uniformly helpful and diligent, and am quite happy to nominate him for mop and bucket duties.Scimitar 29 June 2005 17:30 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I accept the nomination and appreciate the thought and consideration. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd June 29, 2005 17:34 (UTC)

Support
 * 1)  Naturally, I'm the nominator! --Scimitar 29 June 2005 17:31 (UTC)
 * 2) I've seen Andrew around a lot; seems like a fine contributor.  Have a mop!  (Could use more edit summaries, though.) dbenbenn | talk 29 June 2005 18:29 (UTC)
 * 3) Support.  --Kbdank71 29 June 2005 19:01 (UTC)
 * 4) Support.  Grue   29 June 2005 19:41 (UTC)
 * 5) Support! You're freaking kidding me - Andrew's not an admin? Must fix that immediately! -- BD2412  talk June 29, 2005 20:28 (UTC)
 * 6) Support.  Levelheaded and concerned about WP. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) June 29, 2005 21:21 (UTC)
 * 7) Support, because I thought he already was. Good contributor, and solid reasonable person. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt;  June 29, 2005 21:34 (UTC)
 * 8) Articulate and wise.   Ingoolemo   talk 2005 June 30 04:15 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. All major concerns addressed.  (More edit summaries, please.) Unfocused 30 June 2005 04:24 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. Addressed for me too. --Woohookitty 30 June 2005 06:00 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. Plenty of good of good work and fit for adminship. Incidentally, about deletionism (which in my opinion is not a thing which makes anybody unfit for adminship), there is at least one case where Starblind cast the single dissenting non-delete vote. Sjakkalle (Check!)  30 June 2005 07:54 (UTC)
 * 12) Support, I've always found him to be reasonalble, I also see no evidence to suggest that there would be a conflict of interest for any admin that votes on vfd and closes vfd. --nixie 30 June 2005 10:23 (UTC)
 * 13) Support, had the same concerns as Unfocused, but his research and Starblind's explanation/diffs have addressed them adequately. Thanks for your work on VfD! --Spangineer  (háblame)  June 30, 2005 11:06 (UTC)
 * 14) Support: civil user who makes high quality edits. Sietse 30 June 2005 12:30 (UTC)
 * 15) Support While I can't say I agree with the deletionism, that's not the issue here- Starblind can simply be trusted with the keys to the janitor's closet. You (Talk) June 30, 2005 16:36 (UTC)
 * 16) Support. He's answered my concerns about VfD and low numbers of article edits. --Carnildo 30 June 2005 17:58 (UTC)
 * 17) Support. Comments below. --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 30 June 2005 18:15 (UTC)
 * 18) Support per comments on his low edit count below. Andrew's involved in many aspects of Wikipedia combined with his deceptively low edit count of the main articlespace. --Deathphoenix 30 June 2005 18:24 (UTC)
 * 19) Support, looks like valuable admin. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 30 June 2005 21:05 (UTC)
 * 20) Support I see nothing wrong with a user who has a large focus on VfD debates. A mop in his hands would be a helpful force. Bratsche talk  5 pillars June 30, 2005 22:29 (UTC)
 * 21) Support. Good grasp of policy, interest in and reasonable comments on VfDs - just the kind of editor who will make good use of admin abilities. Jayjg (talk) 1 July 2005 07:25 (UTC)
 * 22) Full frontal SUPPORT Cause Starblind, he da man... that's right I said it Jaberwocky6669 July 1, 2005 14:23 (UTC)
 * I am one extremely undecided Wikipedian. I support again because he voted to keep my article Car washing techniques which was a How-to named How to wash your car. Jaberwocky6669 July 1, 2005 15:37 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. I encounter Starblind often in VfD, and while I don't agree with him a fair amount, he obviously puts thought and effort into his votes. I was hesitant to support with only 222 article edits, but it appears most of those edits are "major" edits, and I consider 222 such edits (including quite a few new articles) much better than 1500 more useless edits, like sorting stubs, bypassing redirects, or over-categorizing articles. I think he understands Wikipedia well enough to be an admin. -R. fiend 1 July 2005 21:15 (UTC)
 * 2) Enthusiastically support! One of the hardest working cleaner-uppers here. - Lucky 6.9 2 July 2005 05:52 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Very active in VfD, et al. As mentioned by others, he frequently seems to use an offline editor and only saves his final drafts here on WP. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 2 July 2005 06:46 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - very good editor -- Francs2000 | Talk [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px| ]] 2 July 2005 15:41 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. I have bumped into the Starblind quite a few times while on VfD; no negative experiences. Will make a good admin. --Sn0wflake 2 July 2005 18:00 (UTC)
 * 6) Support - One of the users I was most impressed by when I first arrived at Wikipedia. Sango  123  July 2, 2005 19:40 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. Pavel Vozenilek 4 July 2005 03:03 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. Slac  speak up!  4 July 2005 07:03 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. Wile E. Heresiarch 4 July 2005 07:26 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. -- Joolz 4 July 2005 11:20 (UTC)
 * 11) Support Lectonar 4 July 2005 14:12 (UTC)
 * 12) Support. Imho, Starblind is in the top echelon of WP users. Thryduulf 4 July 2005 15:49 (UTC)
 * 13) Support. This seems to be a good example against edit-counting. Starblind has made more of a contribution to article space, text-wise and quality-wise, than someone who simply adds a stub tag to 1500 articles. (One of his edit summaries is "New article. 10 paragraphs.") I see nothing to suggest he wouldn't be a fine admin; I'd expect him not to close VfDs he voted in, which despite his activity there still leaves plenty. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 4 July 2005 16:54 (UTC)
 * 14) That's hot. Mike H (Talking is hot) July 4, 2005 19:53 (UTC)
 * 15) Support He has some very solid edits to article space, appears to have a good grasp of policy, and is willing to contribute to VFD cleanup.  Go for it.  -- JamesTeterenko 5 July 2005 02:13 (UTC)
 * 16) Support - Understands WP policies, upholds the integrity of the encyclopedia. --FCYTravis 5 July 2005 04:41 (UTC)
 * 17) Support - Hard worker on VFD, valuable contributions. Expect he will do a good job as administrator, helping to deal with some of the workload there (more hands are sorely needed). Cleduc 5 July 2005 05:22 (UTC)
 * 18) Support, yes indeed. Not everyone's willing to labor in the slum of VfD and I respect those who do.  Antandrus  (talk) 6 July 2005 03:16 (UTC)
 * 19) Support. I have no doubt that Starblind will be a good admin. Carbonite | Talk 6 July 2005 10:15 (UTC)
 * 20) Support -- the wub  "?/!"  6 July 2005 12:28 (UTC)
 * 21) Support without hesitation. Postdlf 7 July 2005 02:15 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. Looked at user contributions and it seemed like three-fourths of them were to VFD pages.  Please come back when you have worked on more articles.  PedanticallySpeaking June 29, 2005 17:40 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose&mdash;I think I'm only familiar from VfD, but I remember a lot of strong deletionism and also some hostility towards me. Everyking 29 June 2005 18:23 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. Too few edits in article space.  ElBenevolente 29 June 2005 20:24 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. Insufficient edits to article space, excessive concern with Votes for Deletion and a too strict interpretation of policy which fails to give appropriate flexibility in individual circumstances. David | Talk 30 June 2005 23:28 (UTC)
 * 5) *That's probably related to this edit? Radiant_ &gt;|&lt;  July 1, 2005 13:48 (UTC)
 * 6) **No it isn't. It's a general comment about excessive concern with process over outcome, although that is an example. David | Talk 1 July 2005 14:21 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose. Too few edits in article space and too inflexible. Dmn / &#1332;&#1396;&#1398; 1 July 2005 12:36 (UTC)
 * 8) It's all been said. Netoholic @ July 1, 2005 14:18 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose per my rant above... Jaberwocky6669 July 1, 2005 14:33 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose. He has only been here for just over six months.  Potential admins must have contributed to Wikipedia for at least nine months. Denelson83  2 July 2005 10:00 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose. Reverse proportion of edits between VfD and articles. I'd be keener on this guy becoming an admin if he promised not to close VfDs. He's way too interested in deletion all in all.Grace Note 4 July 2005 00:44 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose. I oppose anyone who spends that much time on VfD, even if he is a good and reasonable editor in general. The result would be an administrator with a very distorted view of Wikipedia, because he sees only the worst of it the majority of the time. It'd be like electing a hobo who lives in the sewers as mayor of a city. RSpeer July 5, 2005 04:53 (UTC)
 * 13) *Though of course, we'd be talking about a hobo philanthropist, who collects garbage for disposal and does his best to clean up the sewers ;) --Scimitar 5 July 2005 13:42 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose. Starblind seems to be a very active contributor, but I'm wary of the practice of spending the majority of one's efforts on deleting content rather than providing it.  It's much easier to remove than it is to add, and I think an admin should make a positive contribution. In short: insufficient work on article namespace; please try again later. siafu 6 July 2005 18:40 (UTC)

Neutral
 * Closing VfDs is useful work, but I'm concerned about someone who will both vote extensively and close debates -- there's significant potential for a conflict of interest there. Also, the user has only 216 edits in article space. --Carnildo 29 June 2005 18:35 (UTC)
 * Neutral. --Unfocused 29 June 2005 21:47 (UTC)  Changed vote to Support, moved comments and response to "Comments" below.  Unfocused 30 June 2005 04:24 (UTC)


 * 1) I don't have a ton of experience with this user, but the one event that stuck out in my mind was when he voted to delete an article because he thought the name was silly. He obviously hadn't done any research into the subject matter, or he would have discovered that "Nifty Fifty" is a common economic term.  However, this was a couple months back, so I don't feel strong enough about it to actually oppose.  --DropDeadGorgias (talk) June 30, 2005 14:23 (UTC)
 * Naturally, I disagree with DropDeadGorgias's interpretation of my vote, which was made back in January, my first month on WP. I certainly did not vote for that reason, nor is anything of the kind stated in my vote.  The "name might sound silly" portion is from a comment posted by Samaritan in response to my vote, not from my vote itself.  I've posted a full explanation on his talk page. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  June 30, 2005 16:39 (UTC)
 * I still find your explanation slightly disingenuous. You made a deletion vote with nothing more than a flip joke about the name as an explanation.  However, I do concede that this was quite a while ago, and not particularly damning in and of itself, which is why my vote is for Neutral rather than Oppose.  --DropDeadGorgias (talk) July 6, 2005 15:03 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral. Great editor but only 219 edits to the article namespace. Won't oppose as his conduct is good, but the vast majority of edits being VfD means I have to stay neutral here. Hedley 30 June 2005 21:29 (UTC)
 * 2) I'm not exactly inclined to want to vote for someone with so few edits on article (granted they are not just tiny change a word edits). I think he is more or less good but I was worried about his simple vote for deletion on Edip Yuksel because I don't think an admin should react so to the user's self-promotion but should research his notoriety which I feel because of his Turkish works he is notable enough.  A good admin I think should be able to see past an annoying user's self-promotion to see if the article belongs regardless.  gren 1 July 2005 06:28 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral. I really like Starblind as an editor; he's great on VfD.  But even though most of my edits are also to VfD, I have more edits in the article namespace (779 in articles to 729 in WP:, and over 600 of the WP: are in VfD).  I think that it's useful for all editors, particularly prospective admins, to contribute relatively evenly over several namespaces.  I'd certainly support him if he did that. --Idont Havaname 1 July 2005 23:23 (UTC)

Comments
 * Originally, I thought very sparse participation in article space was enough to delay adminship for Starblind, until I looked at his contributions: he must do most of his work in an offline editor, as they appear to be nearly complete articles from the very first edit (even if the topics are a bit unusual). However, virtually no talk page participation exists to draw additional judgments from.  Participation in Wikipolitics, which is extensive, doesn't require admin status.  (Participation in Wikipolitics is a perfectly legitimate pursuit here, so please don't interpret this as any form of insult.)  I am willing to be influenced to support if someone provides evidence of good, civil discourse with others, other than VfD.  --Unfocused 29 June 2005 21:47 (UTC)
 * You're right, I do generally post articles in a more-or-less completed state, which I suppose has hurt my edit count (though one doesn't think of that when typing up an article). As for examples of non-VfD discourse, I've worked on many of the various policy proposals, such as .  I'm also rather proud of my "adoption center" concept on the Poképrosal, which has lead to more than 20 former stubs being turned into real full articles.  Let me know if you need more, I'll do some digging! :) Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  June 29, 2005 22:12 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply, which addressed all my concerns. --Unfocused 30 June 2005 04:24 (UTC)
 * He has my sympathy; my edit count balance is skewed for the same reason. Writing one good article takes more time and effort than fifty VfD comments. --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 30 June 2005 18:15 (UTC)
 * While his comments on VfD may lean towards deletion, I don't think that's a reason to withold the keys to the broom closet. There is no indication that he would disregard VfD consensus and start madly deleting articles, and I would hope he has sufficient judgement to steer clear of closing contentious VfDs in which he was a participant. --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 30 June 2005 18:15 (UTC)
 * Second that: an admin is expected to apply the group's decision (specifically on VFD). An admin can should, have hir own opinion -- we're all wikipedians after all.  Edit history keeps admins honest just like everyone else, and I don't doubt that he'll carry out his admin duties with responsiblity.  Cleduc 5 July 2005 05:28 (UTC)
 * warning: editcountitis can be fatal (from Kate's tool). Bratsche talk  5 pillars June 30, 2005 22:29 (UTC)

Right, this rant was in response to the support vote I withdrew just in case anyone wants to know...


 * You'll have to excuse my friend he can be a bit rowdy. (I like chocolate milk!) ...ahem, excuse me please... SHUT UP!!! Now, I will withdraw this vote because I did not take the oppose arguments into as much consideration as I should have. Having looked over his overall edit count I noticed a disturbing trend: a large amount of them are in the wikipedia namespace and not the article namespace. I thusly add my oppose vote in the appropriate location. Now as an aside I would like to mention that I who has way more article edits over anything else who has been here longer than Starblind and who does not enjoy seeing possibly useful articles become deleted has never been nominated for anything. I have come to the conclusion that in order to 'advance' in this crazy wikiworld you need to be rather ruthless and political. That is all, goodday.


 * Namespace	Edits
 * Articles	1759
 * Talk	158
 * User	211
 * User talk	72
 * Wikipedia	350
 * Wikipedia talk	54
 * Image	4
 * Image talk	1
 * Template	5
 * Category	7
 * Not that I would accept anything, I am far far far far far far far far far far far far too new to know anything about anything at WP...

And besides I'm one of those people that is content with just knowing that I can do something but not content with the actual act of doing it...

Yeah, and I always make multiple to the same page of only just a few minor words, nothing ever major, so my edit count is highly inflated... Jaberwocky6669 July 1, 2005 14:33 (UTC)


 * Note that the above is Jaberwocky6669's edit count. And why we needed to know that, I don't know. Hedley 3 July 2005 01:12 (UTC)


 * What does it matter if I put my own edit breakdown on this page? How does it affect anyone? Jaberwocky6669 July 3, 2005 06:11 (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 would say that, admin or not, my basic interests and level of activity will likely remain relatively stable. The main admin duty I would take on would be closing VfDs.  I also check the new articles list for speedy deletion candidates and mark them as such, and it would be nice to be able to complete that process.  I imagine I'd also revert vandalism and such.
 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. My articles tend to be on somewhat obscure topics and often require a fair amount of non-web research. Some of them represent the biggest single source of information on their subjects anywhere.  As a collector of antiquarian books, I have access to some references not commonly available.  Charley Ross, for example, required reference materials well over a century old.  My first article was Aunt Jenny, and I still have a lot of affection for it.  A complete list of articles I've started can be found on my user page.
 * 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. VfD takes the majority of my time here, and one can't always agree with everyone. That said, I think I've been  successful at keeping civil at all times, and even try to add a bit of humour when I can, to keep VfD from becoming a war zone.  I dislike factionalizing and don't consider myself a "deletionist" or "inclusionist", so that helps a lot.  Probably the single article which I've felt the most strongly about was some sort of how-to... I don't remember the actual title, but it was something like "Recipe for colon health" or similar, and was basically a recipe for a very large beer enema.  It was listed on VfD, and I did a little research and found out that following the recipe as written would probably be fatal.  Therefore, we had the first (and hopefully only) Wikipedia article which could actually kill somebody.  I felt very strongly that it should be deleted, and said so.  It later was. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  June 29, 2005 18:02 (UTC)
 * It was Colon health (Votes for deletion/Colon health) which was deleted and now redirects to colon. Sjakkalle (Check!)  30 June 2005 08:00 (UTC)
 * 4 What is your position on closing a VfD that you have participated in?
 * A. To my knowledge, there's no policy against it, but I can see how, yes, it could be seen as a conflict of interest. What I would do to prevent such misunderstanding is avoid closing debates I'd participated in if they are very close or otherwise controversial.  However, if a vote is unanimous or very nearly so, I see nothing wrong with closing it even if I've voted myself.  Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  June 30, 2005 08:54 (UTC)