Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Steel359


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

Steel359
[ Final] (52/2/0) Ended Thu, 14 Sep 2006 12:18:26 (UTC)

– I don't like to boast about myself in this way but I guess that's what I have to do here. I've been a Wikipedian since April 2006. During that time I've been highly active and made some 5500+ edits, a healthy 500 being in the Wikipedia namespace. I've been involved in many areas of Wikipedia, including Wikiproject CVG, vandal patrolling (including AIV), tagging for speedy deletion, requesting protections,  various image-related things, and the odd controversial AfD. I've contributed to the actual encyclopedia and pass *FA (though that criterion seems to have gone out of fashion recently). I like to think I provide sensible, unbiased opinions during content disputes and the like.
 * Edit count - 5507
 * Time around - Since April 06
 * Email enabled? - Yes
 * Controversial userpage? - No
 * Any blocks? - None
 * Stupid signature? - No
 * Edit summaries - 100% for both major and minor
 * Civil? Yes. Always.
 * Personal attacks? - None
 * Mistakes? - A couple of minor ones from a while ago
 * Any edit warring? - None

-- Steel 11:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Self-nom, accept. -- Steel 11:19, 7 September 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, 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: It is, in my opinion, imperative that admins are on-hand when they're needed, and my primary focus would be on areas where swift admin action is required, namely WP:AIV, WP:RFPP and CAT:CSD - all three of which I already participate in and can take some time to be reviewed by an administrator. Having said that, I'd be more than willing to clear out backlogs, like CAT:NT, and just generally lend a hand to whatever task needs doing at the time, whether it be WP:RM, CAT:RFU or WP:OMG. I currently participate in discussions on WP:ANI when I feel I can give an informed and/or intelligent opinion on something. I imagine my activity and usefulness there would only increase as an admin.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A: Featured article Shadow of the Colossus is currently at the top of my list, which was improved from B-class to it's current standard by me and a few other Wikipedians. What I've always found interesting is that the idea to improve it to FA standard arose out of a cleanup the article underwent after a content dispute. Metal Gear Solid 3 is my current project. Originally rated as start-class, it's improved leaps and bounds after serious time and effort was invested in it. Currently in peer review, it's due to hit FAC in the not too distant future.


 * 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 in a share of content disputes, and I feel I handled them extremely well. The most recent one was a dispute over the various uses of the word "Bowser". In particular, whether Nintendo's King Bowser deserved and should be moved to the primary/root page Bowser, or whether it should be a disambiguation. Just on the off-chance anyone is interested, the discussion is located partly at Talk:King Bowser and partly at User talk:JzG. I remained completely calm and civil even when another user started throwing round insults (indeed, admin Jus zis Guy thanked me for my calm presence ). Staying calm is, without a shadow of a doubt, the way to solve disputes.

Question from Centrx
 * 4. What is the purpose and function of policy? How should consensus for new proposed policies and for alterations of existing policies be determined?
 * A: In small communities, it's relatively easy to co-ordinate things. Wikipedia is not a small community. In short, there have to be rules and guidelines which stipulate the way things should be done else things will fall apart in a huge mess of conflicting opinions. That's a very general answer, obviously different policies exist for wildly different reasons (WP:V is to ensure accuracy, WP:FUC because it's the law, etc).
 * As for determining consensus for proposed policies, there is no model of consensus that can be applied successfully to every situation. Consensus has to be decided on a case-by-case basis, which makes a theoretical “How should consensus be determined?” very difficult to answer. Essentially, the solution would have to address everyone’s concerns as best it can. Sam Korn hits the nail on the head when he points out that consensus is not something that everyone supports, rather it's something everyone can live with.


 * Comments


 * See Steel359's edit count on the talk page
 * See Steel359's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.



Support Oppose
 * 1) First Support. I've encountered Steel359 a few times on AIV, edit summary usage meets my criteria, has a FA, and didn't freak out in conflicts that I can see.  In short, I see no reason to assume that Steel359 would abuse administrator privledges. Syrthiss 13:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per . Gwernol 14:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support per nom. Rama's arrow  14:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Has a FA and unlikely to abuse admin tools. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  18:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support per above. Michael 19:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support This editor appears to be a sensible candidate for adminship, based upon answers to questions above and contributions. (aeropa gitica)  20:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support per above. -- Nish kid 64 20:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Will make an excellent administrator. --Mr. L e fty Talk to me! 20:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. This user has been around for a while and will do a great job as an administrator. Plus, one of the more well written RFAs I've seen. -- RM 21:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support Seems to be a terrific all-around editor and I'm rather surprised that he/she's accomplished so much since April. The candidate's RC patrolling will certainly become more efficient with the admin buttons and it seems very unlikely that he/she will abuse the tools   hoopydink  Conas tá tú? 21:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support - Reasonable, evenheaded, well-spoken, and calm. It's almost a shame to inflict an admin bit on him. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Support - I have seen nothing but positive contributions from this user. --After Midnight 0001 00:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Support seems good to me. &mdash; Khoikhoi 00:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Merovingian - Talk 01:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Support Okay. Baseball  Baby  08:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Support. - Mailer Diablo 09:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Support - From my experience with the user he works hard and is conscientious. I'd like to see him get the bit.--Toffile 11:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Support. Seems fine. Voice -of- All  17:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 19)  Support - Ter e nce Ong (T 17:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 20)  Support :) Dlohcierekim 18:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Support A hard-working and civil person, I have seen his help everywhere, including helping me with an article I've been working on. He is a great guy, and will do well as an administrator.--Clyde Miller 20:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) Support Saw you on AfDs before I became an admin, and I saw nothing wrong. Good luck. Yank  sox  21:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 23) Support Good user. Unlikely to abuse admin tools. --Ageo020 21:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 24) Support Obviously good editor, I decided to be flexible in my six month standard.-- danntm T C 22:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 25) Support More CVG admins is a good thing ! &rArr;    SWAT Jester    Ready    Aim    Fire!  23:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 26) Support Although you'll probably turn out to not be my kind of Admin, you've done some really good work with the MGS3 page and we need another Admin at the Metal Gear pages. Also I found out about the lamest edit wars from your page and I'm a bit fan of those (The Bread 00:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC))
 * 27) Support -- Tawker 04:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 28) Support - good vandal fighter. --Ixfd64 04:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 29) Support — Steel's a great editor. I've worked with him in the past, and have been pleasantly surprised that he maintains his cool even when I know I wouldn't. I've also been pleased to see that he maintains a good fight against vandalism, and is an all around benefit to the community in numerous ways. He certainly would make for a great admin. The only reluctance I have is that it might mean he has less time to build pages, but hopefully he'll be able to balance both admin duties and his quality work. Good luck to you, Steel. Ryu Kaze 13:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 30) Support, impressed me with his willingess to support me against the prevailing wind at talk:King Bowser, with a result which was (IMO) correct for the encyclopaedia. Other comments above and looking at other contribs persuades me that this is characteristic. Guy 19:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 31) Support, very civil editor, great work on CVG related articles.--TBC TaLk?!? 20:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 32) Support. Strong user and countervandal, has definite need for the mop. Heimstern Läufer 22:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 33) Support, no major issues and doesn't seem likely to abuse the tools. BryanG(talk) 03:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 34) Strong support - and very impressed that you used inline citations in your self-nom, :D Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 05:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 35) Support. — FireFox  ( talk ) 11:32, 10 September 2006
 * 36) Support. User seems trustable. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 37) Support per nom. Good contributor Anger22 19:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 38) Support Solid editor that will improve Wikipedia,  Tewfik Talk 03:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 39) Support, excellent nomination. Good contributor, and I have no reason to believe that Steel359 will make anything but a similarly good administrator. Daveydw ee b ( chat/patch ) 03:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 40) Support. Thunderbrand 04:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 41) Support RN 19:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 42) Support, without reservations.  Sango 123  21:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 43) Support--Awesome Username 10:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 44) Support per good answers and great track record. Themindset 18:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 45) Support Doctor Bruno  Talk  18:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 46) Support Hello32020 19:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 47) Support I've known Steel for some time now and can thus give him my support; he's a genuine user and isn't just out to get power. CNash 22:01, 12 September 2006
 * 48) Support, per nom -- Lego@lost EVIL, EVIL! | 04:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 49) Support - best self nom I can recall, terrific answers, great stats = super sysop! (God that was cheesy...) - Gl e n 12:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 50) Support - Fully qualified for this, good endorsements. Trnj2000 19:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 51) Support per nom. John254 20:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 52) Support I'd like to see more article contributions but he's over the bar. --Mcginnly | Natter 22:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose -- lack of experience with images, also fails short of my current standard of 9 months with the project --T-rex 00:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Although I myself haven't uploaded many images, I've written fair use rationales and provided source information for other people's images in addition to upholding policy by removing fair use images from userspace . I've tagged plenty of images as orphaned fair use or lacking source and/or license information, though the only hard evidence I can provide for that is this, as all the others have been deleted. Just in case there's any confusion, the deleted image in my upload log was actually tagged for deletion by myself.  -- Steel 01:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, this was good to see, but I'm still opposing due to time --T-rex 15:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak Oppose: I like your answers and willingness to clear backlogs, but too many of your AFDs back in June/July were one line votes based upon the research established by others. I need to be convinced you have the patience to go through things with a fine tooth comb, because long term abusers know a lot of tricks to cover up their tracks. I'm willing to reconsider if you can show me an incident where your persistence or investigative skills paid off though. --  Netsnipe  ►  07:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * In addition to my comment on your talk page, when providing sources for articles like MGS3, I'm often required to spend considerable lengths of time looking through websites and such for appropriate references, with, as you say, a fine toothed comb. I'm aware this is unrelated to AfD but it definitely shows I have the patience and ability to undertake painstaking research which at times may be required as an administrator. -- Steel 12:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutral #:Neutral Considering that the candidate is such a talented contributor, and gave such intelligent answers, I would love to be able to support. However, it pains me to say that because the candidate falls one month short of my standard for time, I must stay neutral. -- danntm T C 20:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Switching to support (see above).-- danntm T C 22:43, 8 September 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.