Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/S@bre

Links:
 * X!'s Editcounter
 * SQL's editcounter

X!'s Editcounter

Username: S@bre First edit: Dec 27, 2005 12:11:14 Unique articles edited: 1,816 Average edits per page: 7.62 Total edits (including deleted): 13,829 Deleted edits: 1,128 Live edits: 12,701 Namespace totals Article	7244	52.38% Talk	1129	8.16% User	1104	7.98% User talk	863	6.24% Wikipedia	723	5.23% Wikipedia talk	490	3.54% File	686	4.96% File talk	69	0.50% Template	295	2.13% Template talk	66	0.48% Category	29	0.21% Category talk	2	0.01% Portal	1	0.01% Month counts 2005/12	39	2006/01	3	2006/02	0	2006/03	0	2006/04	1	2006/05	3	2006/06	0	2006/07	5	2006/08	10	2006/09	0	2006/10	0	2006/11	2	2006/12	0	2007/01	0	2007/02	0	2007/03	0	2007/04	0	2007/05	149	2007/06	437	2007/07	559	2007/08	516	2007/09	370	2007/10	444	2007/11	592	2007/12	391	2008/01	656	2008/02	439	2008/03	280	2008/04	1142	2008/05	739	2008/06	365	2008/07	417	2008/08	532	2008/09	812	2008/10	909	2008/11	1124	2008/12	786	2009/01	681	2009/02	298	Logs Pages moved: 110 Files uploaded: 236 Top edited articles Article

* 669 - Team_Fortress_2 * 540 - Characters_of_StarCraft * 456 - Species_of_StarCraft * 294 - StarCraft_(series) * 253 - StarCraft * 193 - The_Orange_Box * 185 - Jim_Raynor * 166 - Sarah_Kerrigan * 162 - Day_of_Defeat:_Source * 154 - StarCraft:_Brood_War

Talk

* 93 - Team_Fortress_2 * 57 - StarCraft * 36 - StarCraft:_Ghost * 31 - Species_of_StarCraft * 30 - The_Orange_Box * 27 - StarCraft_II * 27 - Empire:_Total_War * 26 - Characters_of_StarCraft * 25 - List_of_minor_characters_in_the_StarCraft_series * 23 - Sarah_Kerrigan

User

* 130 - S@bre/Sandbox * 116 - S@bre/Sam_&_Max * 104 - S@bre/Userpage/Contributions * 88 - S@bre * 58 - S@bre/Empire:_Total_War * 54 - S@bre/Contributions * 52 - S@bre/Userpage/Introduction * 47 - The_Clawed_One/Jim_Raynor * 44 - S@bre/Locations_of_StarCraft * 38 - S@bre/Workshop

User talk

* 145 - The_Clawed_One * 130 - S@bre * 89 - David_Fuchs * 71 - Gary_King * 25 - Deckiller * 21 - Jacoplane * 16 - Ashnard * 14 - SkyWalker * 13 - A_Man_In_Black * 13 - S@bre/Archive_1

Wikipedia

* 66 - WikiProject_Video_games/StarCraft * 46 - WikiProject_Video_games/Good_articles * 42 - WikiProject_Video_games/Valve * 35 - Good_article_nominations * 30 - WikiProject_Video_games/Assessment * 22 - WikiProject_Video_games/Wikipedia_0.7_workshop * 20 - Featured_article_candidates/The_Orange_Box/archive... * 18 - Featured_article_review/Half-Life_2/archive1 * 17 - WikiProject_Video_games/StarCraft/to_do * 16 - WikiProject_Video_games/Assessment/Requests

Wikipedia talk

* 386 - WikiProject_Video_games * 36 - WikiProject_Video_games/to_do * 10 - WikiProject_Video_games/Valve/to_do * 10 - WikiProject_Video_games/StarCraft * 9 - WikiProject_Video_games/Article_guidelines * 8 - WikiProject_Video_games/Cleanup * 6 - WikiProject_Video_games/Assessment * 5 - WikiProject_Video_games/Valve * 4 - WikiProject_Video_games/Wikipedia_0.7_workshop * 3 - WikiProject_Comics

File

* 17 - TF2_Group.jpg * 15 - Easy_Rider_(StarCraft).jpg * 14 - Collectors_figures_(StarCraft).jpg * 11 - Terran_Confederacy.png * 9 - Nova_(StarCraft).jpg * 9 - StarCraft_box_art.jpg * 9 - Vortigaunt.png * 9 - High_Definition_Half-Life_comparison.jpg * 8 - Battlecruiser_fleets_(StarCraft).png * 8 - Anzio_(DoDS).jpg

File talk

* 2 - Over_Reverent_(StarCraft).jpg * 2 - Klingon_D-7_class.jpg * 1 - Combine_soldiers.png * 1 - Test_chamber_AYool.jpg * 1 - Combine.svg * 1 - Civil_Protection_(Half-Life).jpg * 1 - Empire_Total_War_Boxart.jpg * 1 - Baneling_attack_(StarCraft).jpg * 1 - HalfLife2_City17_TrainStationSquare.jpg * 1 - StarCraft_Archive_cover.jpg

Template

* 56 - StarCraft_series * 35 - Half-Life * 20 - Infobox_VG_character * 18 - Valve_games * 16 - Blizzard_Entertainment * 11 - LucasArts_adventure_games * 11 - Sam_&_Max * 11 - Star_Trek_video_games * 10 - VG_Reviews * 9 - Doom_series

Template talk

* 37 - Infobox_VG * 10 - VG_Reviews * 5 - StarCraft_series * 4 - Star_Trek_video_games * 3 - Half-Life * 1 - Blizzard_Entertainment * 1 - Source_modifications * 1 - StarCraft * 1 - LucasArts_adventure_games * 1 - Valve_technology

Category

* 10 - StarCraft_character_redirects_to_lists * 4 - StarCraft_characters * 4 - StarCraft * 2 - Half-Life_media * 1 - GA-Class_Mortal_Kombat_articles * 1 - FA-Class_Mortal_Kombat_articles * 1 - A-Class_Mortal_Kombat_articles * 1 - Unassessed_Mortal_Kombat_articles * 1 - Sam_&_Max_media * 1 - Video_game_critics

Category talk

* 1 - Sam_&_Max_media * 1 - Sam_&_Max

Portal

* 1 - Video_games/Picture/60

SQL's Editcounter

Report for User:S@bre User groups: Edits (including deleted edits): 13829 Edits: 12702 Deleted edits: 1127 Action Counts Pages moved: 110 Files uploaded: 236 Automated or script-assisted edits! Approximate edits using WP:TWINKLE: 0 Approximate edits using WP:AWB: 0 Approximate edits using WP:FRIENDLY: 0 Approximate edits using WP:FURME: 0 Approximate edits using Popups: 0 Approximate edits using MWT: 0 Approximate edits using Huggle: 0 Approximate edits using NPWatcher: 0 Approximate edits using amelvand: 0 Approximate total automated or assisted edits: 0 Namespace counts! Namespace	Count	Percent Main	7244	57.03% Talk	1129	8.89% User	1104	8.69% User talk	863	6.79% Wikipedia	723	5.69% Wikipedia talk	490	3.86% Image	686	5.4% Image talk	69	0.54% Template	295	2.32% Template talk	66	0.52% Category	29	0.23% Category talk	2	0.02% Portal	1	0.01% Top 10 User Talk edits

1. The_Clawed_One - 145 edits 2. S@bre - 130 edits 3. David_Fuchs - 89 edits 4. Gary_King - 71 edits 5. Deckiller - 25 edits 6. Jacoplane - 21 edits 7. Ashnard - 16 edits 8. SkyWalker - 14 edits 9. A_Man_In_Black - 13 edits 10. Guyinblack25 - 10 edits 11. Clicketyclick - 9 edits

Top 25 mainspace article edits

1. Team_Fortress_2 - 669 edits 2. Characters_of_StarCraft - 540 edits 3. Species_of_StarCraft - 456 edits 4. StarCraft_(series) - 294 edits 5. StarCraft - 253 edits 6. The_Orange_Box - 193 edits 7. Jim_Raynor - 185 edits 8. Sarah_Kerrigan - 166 edits 9. Day_of_Defeat:_Source - 162 edits 10. StarCraft:_Brood_War - 154 edits 11. Sam_&_Max_Hit_the_Road - 152 edits 12. StarCraft:_Ghost - 127 edits 13. Star_Trek:_Voyager_–_Elite_Force - 125 edits 14. Vortigaunt - 120 edits 15. Empire:_Total_War - 116 edits 16. Terran_Confederacy - 106 edits 17. StarCraft_II - 104 edits 18. List_of_minor_characters_in_the_StarCraft_series - 103 edits 19. Doom_3 - 96 edits 20. List_of_StarCraft_media - 92 edits 21. Locations_of_Half-Life - 88 edits 22. Klingon_starships - 80 edits 23. Pirates,_Vikings_and_Knights_II - 80 edits 24. Half-Life:_Decay - 77 edits 25. Combine_(Half-Life) - 69 edits

Extended discussion re A Nobody's (now struck) oppose
Weak oppose. I have had a positive interaction with the candidate at User_talk:A_Nobody/Archive_2 and I am pleased that the candidate has some barnstars and has never been blocked. I would also support per Articles for deletion/Kamino (reasonable attempt to get back on track), Articles for deletion/Knights Templar and popular culture (2nd nomination) (reasonable argument), and Articles for deletion/Troy Blacklaws (reasonable argument). But I would argue neutral per Articles for deletion/Arathi (semi-reasonable argument, but use of “cruft” is frowned on), Articles for deletion/Black Mesa Research Facility (redirect somewhat okay), Articles for deletion/Blood Ravens (again somewhat okay), Articles for deletion/Characters in Call of Duty (final stance was “neutral”, so…), Articles for deletion/List of units in the Age of Mythology series (reasonable argument); Articles for deletion/Stilwater (reasonable middle ground), and Articles for deletion/White Forest Rocket Facility (reasonable middle ground). Nevertheless, I compelled to oppose per Articles for deletion/Brawl Characters' Final Smashes (at worst, should have been a redirect), Articles for deletion/Devouring One (essentially a WP:JNN), Articles for deletion/Kyokugenryu Karate (no real reason why not to redirect as seems to have happened anyway), Articles for deletion/List of F.E.A.R. Mods (supporting an article means supporting a rewrite, not to bold face delete), Articles for deletion/List of Gex enemies (calling it non-notable is not accurate; no reason not to redirect/merge), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of units in the Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War series (no reason not merge and redirect), Articles for deletion/Morretti SR4 (if redirect is okay, then just go with that), Articles for deletion/Rules of Acquisition (2nd nomination) (a bit confrontational), Articles for deletion/Weapons and equipment of the Tau Empire (Warhammer 40,000) (don’t see why what’s good for others wikis isn’t good for us, we are also specialized encyclopedias after all and sort of the master wiki), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weapons of SOCOM: U.S. Navy SEALs Combined Assault (if mention is okay in the main article, then merge and redirect at worst), Articles for deletion/Wraith Squadron (confrontational a bit), Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Fancruft (second nomination) (if redirecting some of the above cited article is somehow not appropriate then deleting a nonsensical non-article redirect is also inappropriate), and Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2008_April_25 (no value whatsoever to keeping anything with “cruft” in it around; how that word is defended more than articles is baffling). The opposes are more numerous than the reasons to be neutral or to support and they essentially concern potential bias in closing discussions and as the candidate says he is interested in AfDs, it is especially relevant here. Thus, candidate does not sufficiently meet User:A_Nobody; however, because there are some saving graces, I will make this stance a “weak oppose.” If there’s a reassurance that AfDs for which the candidate may have bias are avoided or that are on the fence are “no consensus”, then I will reconsider. My concern here stems from closes like Articles for deletion/Rubber-Band Man (Static Shock) that somehow resulted in delete with no explanation despite considerably more arguments to keep, or Articles for deletion/Sennon (pretty much everyone was okay with a redirect, but somehow closed as “delete”?!), Articles for deletion/Schutzwald (how could that not have been “redirect”; no explanation), etc. Now I have no idea if Sabre would do the same thing and the only thing we have to go on is looking at how he argued in AfDs. As such, I see a bit too much of a tendency towards deletion when a redirect would at least be reasonable and in order for me, as an article rescuer, to be okay with him closing AfDs would be if we are reassured that this bias will not influence closes and/or that ones where he might have any bias will be passed over. Hopefully, if this passes, my concerns will not appear and such experiences as the one on my user page cited above will be more the norm. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 01:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Based on the fact that you are apparently opposing based on a misunderstanding of AfD policies and AfD closures you disagree with but the candidate did not participate in, I wish you would reconsider. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 01:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * So you are opposing based on 1) a difference of opinion rather than a question of his judgement and 2)concerns about closes for AfDs he didn't close. I think this is likely to be taken as a "bureaucrat, please ignore this oppose" rather than a "weak oppose". Ironholds (talk) 02:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Difference of opinion means a difference in judgment, i.e. I am not confident with the candidate's understanding of inclusion criteria and thus how he judges article inclusion standards. I am opposing per the several examples of above of AfDs in which he did participate and which give me pause.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 02:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Guys, A Nobody does this all the time. He lists a ton of AfDs in which the candidate goes against his off-the-wall inclusion philosophy. He's not going to change his !vote, so let a bureaucrat give it appropriate weight or lack thereof. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 04:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not impressed with the fact that I've just wasted a half hour of my life going through what has to be the most trivial and irrelevant "oppose" I have ever read. "I only want admins who think and act exactly the way I do!" is a really stupid point of view and a dangerous one. Dissent tends to breed creativity, and the success of Wikipedia has a lot to do with the number of opposing viewpoints that exist on it. Trusilver  17:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem here is that the inclusion criteria presented by the candidate is needlessly out of touch with what thousands of contributors and readers use Wikipedia for. It gets old having the minority of editors who focus on participating in AfDs and crafting overly restrictive guidelines deciding for the multitudes what they happen to think worthwhile and don't.  Someone has to defend that viewpoint of the silent majority and what is funny is in my stance I compliment the candidate for some aspects of his editing, while I am concerned about how he might close discussions based on how he has argued in the past.  I disagree, so I am not confident in how he understands and interprets policies and guidelines.  Do I oppose everything the candidate has done, no.  Do I think the candidate has positives, yes, and I said as much.  If "dissent" is a good thing, then having an oppose in an RfA should not really be a big deal, either.  After all, admins will have to take all kind of flak once they start deleting articles and blocking people.  Just as I can smile at hyperbole reactions to me, a sign of a potential admin's character is when he/she is able to handle opposes in RfAs and at least S@bre has as far as I can tell taken this in stride.  Take care!  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As I've said above, let him have his crackpot view. It's horribly myopic, ignorant of AfD processes and policies, and reflects his overwhelming and illogical biases concerning his extreme inclusionist philosophy, but it's a waste of time to debate with someone who has no intention of deviating from his views. I'm sure I can safely assume that any bureaucrat is going to give this practically no weight whatsoever, and ironically, it's acquiring more supporters, so it works out both ways. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 09:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Considering no one respects or takes seriously the views of extreme deletionists, you're not in any position to talk. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, another extreme inclusionist calling me a deletionist. My views are suddenly invalidated in the eyes of the community. What a lame comeback. The responses here are indicative enough of how horribly illogical your views are, especially considering that you're the only opposition here, meaning that everyone above doesn't find your argument the least bit convincing. Are they all "extreme deletionists" too? Troll elsewhere. It's bad enough you're bringing your misguided views to RfA, and that you're completely unable to appreciate an editor beyond their inclusion philosophy. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 17:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Why do you keep trolling me? Why are you so bent on descending into incivility and hyperbole whenever you meet opposition?  Stop turning Wikipedia into a battleground.  You're an admin.  Show some maturity and lead by example.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * So I ask everyone to stop attempting to dispute your position and now I'm "trolling"? If you can't even appreciate people trying to allow you to have your say, then I'm at a loss. And yes, I'm an admin. Thank God that doesn't mean I have to coddle a person who has divorced himself from reality. Whatever, I'm done here. The lack of opposes beneath here speaks for itself. My apologies to S@bre for having this discussion distract from what is looking like a near-unanimous pass. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 17:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You can ask people to not dispute someone's position without using language that obviously baits people into responding, which is what you continue to do. You are so blinded by the belief that you are always right that you don't realize how mean you treat people and instead of taking an approach that might have actually encouraged them to see where you're coming from only makes them regard you as needlessly aggresive.  Remember the old saying, if you have nothing nice to say, say nothing at all.  And if you really wanted to take this discussion back on track, why then essentially throw in an off-topic mocking of Pixelface's oppose below?  Take care!  --A NobodyMy talk 17:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to say this is the longest single oppose I can recall ever seeing. rootology ( C )( T ) 06:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Nah, check out his oppose on my RFA from a few months back... it was much more emphatic, and ended up netting me a few extra supports to boot! Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC).
 * Pff...they all pale in comparison to this montrosity :p — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 09:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Congratulations Seph, you win :) Trusilver  15:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow...That's what I call a wall of text. - Mailer Diablo 16:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Why couldn't I have gotten him to oppose my RfA? If he had, he would have ticked so many people off that I would have gotten eight or ten supports in response and I wouldn't have been sitting up at 5 a.m. watching it close at 79.6 percent.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And if you recall after a civil interaction between us, I switched from whatever kind of initial oppose that I had to a weak oppose. Indeed, as I said to S@bre, just a general comment, it pains me that some bad faith rivals of mine from the past wish to turn this oppose section into a battleground.  I thought there are a number of positives about the candidate's editing, but still recall a number of AfDs that cause lingering concerns for me.  Had no one else commented and only the candidate commented with a "I don't plan to close AfDs I might have a bias in," or "I have changed my opinions since then," etc., I would have simply moved to "neutral" or maybe "weak support," but instead people take the approach that makes one dig in and causes tensions.  Even though I said several lines of positives, that I am willing to keep an open-mind, and hope that my concerns will be proven unfounded, editors take the needlessly hyperbole hostility approach rather than the kind of calm challenges that in the past actually have convinced me to change my mind.  Despite now having to defend my position and go back and forth with non-neutral critics, I do nevertheless not bear ill will toward the candidate and wish him luck if it does pass.  How anyone can read that oppose as anything more than "I see a number of positives, but am just concerned about some AfD work.  Nevertheless, maybe the candidate will work out fine" is beyond me.  So, anyway, I expect the reasonable among us to not let those trying to escalate things make us lose spirits.  I have some faith that S@bre could work out okay in any event.  So, have a nice day!  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

If the people at AfD or DRV haven't been persuaded by an opposer's arguments, why should RFA voters be persuaded? Do we have some special knowledge that AfD and DRV people lack? I'm not saying we should tell someone "you can't say that" or "your vote doesn't count", only that I could see consensus building for a common reply of "Take it up at DRV if you believe that, and let us know how it came out". We could probably say the same for UAA. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 01:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Note to bureaucrats
Because the "@" in S@bre's username could cause problems with the ability of the software to sysop or desysop his account, he has agreed to change his username to Sabre. If his RfA succeeds tomorrow (which at this point seems quite likely), be sure to complete his Usurpation Request prior to granting his rights. I'd do the usurpation now, but it seems less complicated to do it after the RfA is closed and not during the RfA. Kingturtle (talk) 14:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see how it would cause confusion as the new name is already what he uses in his signature. Anyway I think whoever closes it would have a problem if they tried to do it the other way, unless they use the super-sekrit technique Angela explained to me (see the discussion section), or maybe this is required for renames too, I don't know. Try it! — CharlotteWebb 16:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by the other way. I am not saying to grant rights and then usurp. Definitely usurp first, then grant the rights. It just seemed less complicated to do it after the RfA closed. Kingturtle (talk) 16:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Usurpation request was withdrawn by S@abre. See BN. Kingturtle (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)