Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Susvolans

Susvolans
final (4/12/11) ending 18:54 2 July 2005 (UTC)

Susvolans is doing tireless work on stub sorting and vandalism patrol, and has over 6000 edits under the belt. A steadfast contributor who can be trusted to use adminity to further the wiki. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 18:55, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept, and would like to apologise for having been offline so long. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 28 June 2005 07:31 (UTC)

Support
 * Sarge Baldy 19:03, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support - There's always plenty of room at the Hotel RC Patrol. --FCYTravis 19:11, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) I do not find the reasons given for opposing convincing. Tony Sidaway|Talk 28 June 2005 10:33 (UTC)
 * 2) Nor do I. --Kbdank71 29 June 2005 16:54 (UTC)
 * 3) I'm willing to support, too. Grutness...  wha?  30 June 2005 01:45 (UTC)
 * 4) Looks like a fine user. That signature issue seems to have been a long time ago. Sjakkalle (Check!)  30 June 2005 14:20 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) No way. -- Netoholic @ 19:35, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
 * Any particular reason? Carbonite | Talk 19:40, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I've seen your comment. Voters should not be challenged. I have at this time not given detailed reasons. No amount of prodding will change that.  You'll get a better explanaion when I see fit.  -- Netoholic @ 22:25, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
 * FYI, Neto told me he would explain when Sus answered the standard questions. HTH. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 23:25, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That's pretty reasonable and all I wanted to know for now. Carbonite | Talk 23:27, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Good to know private conversations are, private. -- Netoholic @ 13:07, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)
 * On wikipedia anything typed anywhere other than in an email or on IRC nothing is private. Jtkiefer June 29, 2005 02:35 (UTC)
 * I've tried many times to move the above threaded comments down to the designated Comments section. I moved them because I believe it is inappropriate for voters to be challenged in this way and, from a practical standpoint, it makes this section less readable and clear.  I wanted to take a brief opportunity to illustrate why this practice should be discouraged and discontinued.
 * I'd like everyone to consider these things before replying directly to another user's vote.
 * There are some serious consequences if this sort of discourtesy persists:
 * Users who have not yet voted may fear similar sorts of pestering. They may even decide not to vote to avoid it.
 * Escalating failures to Assume good faith - When one's vote is challenged, the natural reaction is to feel that the challenger does not believe you made the vote in good faith. Of course, the converse can happen when the voter assumes the challenger has negative motives.  On a very public page, and with the challenge directly under a vote, This intensifies. Moving the discussion elsewhere immediately reduces to urgency of the situation.
 * Users who are new to the voting process may expect that challenging a voter is acceptable, encouraged, and part of normal procedure.
 * Especially on a vote page over a user's adminship, they may take any comments or challenges personally. They may also feel badly when someone who supports them acts or is victim to this.
 * Other users who may wish to comment may avoid doing so for fear of over-extending the amount of space given to the conversation as it appears in the voting section.
 * When threaded discussions in the voting section grow too long and complex, the vote suffers purely because of the readability of it.
 * Votes may become accidently deleted because of the high traffic in the voting sections.
 * The conversation, as many do, may diverge into other topics, growing longer and longer.
 * Bureaucrats and other readers may have difficulty tallying the voting result.
 * Voters who've been challenged may feel specifically targetted when other similar voters aren't challenged. (In other words, if one voter leaves a simple "Oppose" vote, and so do many others, why would only one of those voters be challenged for more information?)
 * Challenging a voter may be an attempt at poisoning the well or at setting the challenged voter up as a straw man to discredit all who've voted with the challenged voter.
 * Alternatives:
 * Instead of commenting directly to any voter, use the Comments section.
 * Comments could go on the Talk page instead of the main page of the vote.
 * Contact the user, via their own talk page or email, and ask for clarification on their vote.
 * Don't comment. If a voter has chosen to leave no explanation, then that is their desire.
 * As one can see, there are many alternatives to directly commenting on a vote, and all are much better than commenting directly. Hopefully, if we can learn to at least show this minimum respect, a lot of conflict can be avoided. Likewise, users can be proactive by removing discussion threads from the voting sections, whereever they see them.  -- Netoholic @ 18:57, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)
 * Alternately, one could provide some semblence of a reason for an opposition vote, and save a lot of trouble. -R. fiend 28 June 2005 20:40 (UTC)
 * One could say, contrary-wise, that "one could provide some semblence of a reason" for one's blank "Support" vote as well. I for one, don't expect or require anything more than a simply yes or no.  Anything else provided is simply a bonus. -- Netoholic @ June 28, 2005 21:33 (UTC)
 * A blank support vote could easily be read as "agree with nominator" (nominators, I believe, always provide reasons, or at least always should), this can not hold true for a blank oppose vote, at least, certainly not the first oppose vote. -R. fiend 28 June 2005 23:07 (UTC)
 * I am sorry to interfere, but do you both mind taking this discussion to a Talk page? This branch is already way out of context and using a lot of space destined to discuss the candidate. --Sn0wflake 29 June 2005 00:11 (UTC)
 * 1) Instantnood 19:55, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. I can't support someone who's used their sig for panic-mongering for admin. --Carnildo 20:04, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) * For the record, I was drawing attention to a proposal that had been tacked on to a substantially different one. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 29 June 2005 07:23 (UTC)
 * 4) **Yes, and you did so using inflammatory, inaccurate language. --Carnildo 29 June 2005 18:42 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose per Carnildo gkhan 11:26, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose 172 01:35, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose I too dislike the panic-mongering Dmn / &#1332;&#1396;&#1398; 12:19, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose, suspicious about his POV orientation, based on past interaction. IZAK 28 June 2005 06:16 (UTC)
 * 9) * Could you elucidate please? Susvolans (pigs can fly) 29 June 2005 07:23 (UTC)
 * 10) **There were a few small episodes that have left me wondering ever since I came across them: (1) At Votes for deletion/Violence against Israelis where you left some troubling cryptic comments at the top of the page; (2) From there, a deeper look at some of your contributions, mostly during Oct. and Sep. 2004, shows that you think it is "POV" to talk of Saddam Hussein's "regime" which you claim is POV, and you then removed the word "regime" from many articles (e.g. see  and more); and (3) Your brief supportive comments to banned User:Alberuni (see ). Albeit seemingly minor, because you do make tons of solid contributions, it still worries me a lot that you could "lend a hand" to both a discredited dictator (Saddam) and a discredited user (Alberuni) and at the same time make an oblique comment in a manner deprecating the concerns of those worried about Violence against Israelis. On this basis, for now, I am  therefore opposed that an admin position should be handed you, since who knows how your real views (unknown to the world) would effect your usage of admin privileges in the future. In any case you can continue all your solid technical editorial work just fine without being an admin. Thanks. IZAK 29 June 2005 10:42 (UTC)
 * 11) ***The contact with Alberuni was early on, when I was assuming good faith. I would also like to thank you for publicising my RFA. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 29 June 2005 17:48 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose per IZAK and Carnildo. --Briangotts 28 June 2005 20:53 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose I have serious concerns about the possible uses of this power if given and I agree that stub sorting doesn't really show a need for the extra capabilities unlike say vfd, quick deletions, or other functions that are greatly helped by having the increased functional abilities, though since administration is no big deal I would have no problem supporting your RFA in the future if you have shown that you would benefit from acess to the increased responsibilities of administratorship. Jtkiefer June 29, 2005 04:40 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose - for many of the same reasons above. A curate's egg 1 July 2005 14:39 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose based on panicmongering. The sysop who did this in the past deserves to be desysopped; someone who tends to it already certainly should not be made one in the first place. Ambi 1 July 2005 17:36 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose. SlimVirgin (talk) July 2, 2005 01:30 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose based on panicmongering. The sysop who did this in the past deserves to be desysopped; someone who tends to it already certainly should not be made one in the first place. Ambi 1 July 2005 17:36 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. SlimVirgin (talk) July 2, 2005 01:30 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) I want to Support, as I like Suslovans, but I don't see stub sorting as a reason to give someone an admin.  Sure, it's necessary gruntwork that needs a reward, but I keep seeing it as a reason to make someone an admin.  For what other reasons should I vote for Suslovans?  I'm sure I'll eventually move to support but spell out why I should, please. SchmuckyTheCat 19:34, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral - per Sn0wflake. --FCYTravis 21:18, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Are you the same one who called me a vandal? If I'm mistaken I apologize. It was either you or someone with a similar name. Everyking 00:24, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) *Some months ago, an open proxy reverted some articles to your versions while you were blocked, and I suggested it was you. I apologise for getting the wrong end of the stick. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 29 June 2005 17:48 (UTC)
 * 5) Abstain until the questions are finished. Bratsche talk  5 pillars 21:54, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) No accepto, no voto. --Golbez 00:21, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) I'd like to support as this user appears to do quite a lot of leg work - their stub sorting may not be an admin job, but it does show a willingness to do boring, repetitive stuff, and a lot of admin chores can be boring and repetitive. However there is some evidence of this user panic-mongering in the 'oppose' section (above), which needs accounting for before I change my neutral vote to a support vote. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] 28 June 2005 15:48 (UTC)
 * 8) Neutral until the questions are answered. Stub sorting is good, but I'm detecting POV pushing. This is one RFA that isn't a clean-cut yes/no situation. I will need to think about this more before supporting or opposing. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk June 28, 2005 19:31 (UTC)
 * 9) Neutral, gotta see them questions answered proper-like! :-) Kim Bruning 29 June 2005 00:45 (UTC)
 * 10) I know he's a good guy, but how can we support when questions are so badly answered. Bluemoose 29 June 2005 11:39 (UTC)
 * 11) Abstain. I do agree with Netoholic that we shouldn't have to justify a vote either for or against.  PedanticallySpeaking June 29, 2005 17:49 (UTC)
 * 12) Neutral until the editor answers the standard questions. --Sn0wflake 20:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)  Oppose. I am deeply sorry to oppose, but I don't find this nomination to be taking a positive course. Suslovans has provided terse answers for only two of the mandatory questions and doesn't seem to have addressed any of the concerns brought forward by other editors. I do not think that he is ready for adminship yet. Will look into this with fresh eyes in case he is nominated once more in the future. --Sn0wflake 28 June 2005 21:22 (UTC) Abstain. There is simply no way for me to vote fairly here, so I am withdrawing from this RfA.
 * 13) * I was busy yesterday. I have added more commentrs. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 29 June 2005 07:23 (UTC)

Comments
 * Susvolans has 6172 edits: Articles/Talk: 4682/133, User/Talk: 53/107, Wikipedia: 499/66, Image/Talk: 2/0, Template/Talk: 71/5, Category/Talk: 554/0. – ABCD 28 June 2005 20:57 (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. RC patrol, mainly. In all cases, I will stay well away where I am personally involved.
 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. My work linking articles that had been lost in the system into categories where people can make use of them; also some contributions to Village pump (technical). Susvolans (pigs can fly) 29 June 2005 17:48 (UTC)
 * 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 tried to seek the opinions of a wider number of people when I have felt this to be appropriate. As I have been here, I have come to value our concensus-based approach. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 28 June 2005 07:31 (UTC) I have unfortunately become enmeshed in dispute resolution at times, which has given me no pleasure. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 29 June 2005 17:48 (UTC)