Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Steel1943

Edit stats
as of 14:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC) per xTools added by -- samtar talk or stalk 14:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC) First edit: Oct 21, 2011, 2:18 PM Latest edit: Jul 11, 2016, 5:10 AM

Live edits: 64,832 Deleted edits: 9,625 Total edits: 74,457

Unique pages edited: 33,699 Pages created: 7,380 Pages moved: 3,589

Ø edits per page: 1.9

Files uploaded: 89 Files uploaded (Commons): 2

Reverted edits: 196 Edits with summary: 63,777 Number of minor edits (tagged): 6,184

(Semi-)automated edits
As of 11 July 2016, using musikanimal/nonautomated_edits: &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  15:30, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * All namespaces: 24,144 (37%) out of 65,016 total
 * Mainspace: 9,355 (36%) out of 26,063 total

Ajraddatz's oppose cont.
Oppose - per past RfA comments by the candidate, I feel like they do not understand what adminship is. Commenting on the % of edits to the user talk space is clearly unrelated to whether or not a candidate would make a good administrator, and it makes me concerned that Steel views the role too much like a job or status symbol, rather than a few extra tools that allow people to help more. We don't need that; we need people that recognise that Wikipedia is a hobby, and that being an administrator is no big deal. Ajraddatz (talk) 16:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I would also like to oppose some of the ridiculous comments above which seem to suggest that admins must not be human. Leadership isn't needed, and the ability to step back from stressful situations will definitely come in hand if the candidate passes. Being a full-time editor certainly isn't needed, and should even be discouraged. Sorry to end up in the same camp as these others. Ajraddatz (talk) 16:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , I am not at all suggesting that our admins should not be humans. In fact they are often better than bots that may be prone to false positives! However, I will say that when I am editing, it is the only thing I focus on, and I did not have many real life commitments outside of Wikipedia prior to semi retirement. Commitment is important - there's a reason why we desysop inactive admins. Best -- Zero talk 16:44, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That sounds quite unreasonable. Wikipedia is a website on the internet; nobody should be spending most of their time here. Obviously thanks to those who do and make massive amounts of contributions as a result, but that should not be the norm. So long as Steel keeps coming back, there should be no issue with their level of commitment - and if there is, they can be desysopped through the normal procedures. Ajraddatz (talk) 16:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Correction - "There's a reason why we desysop inactive admins". There is, but that reason has nothing to do with commitment. It's a routine procedure and administrators that have their flags removed due to not editing for over a year can get them back should they return and request it. See WP:INACTIVITY. KaisaL (talk) 18:33, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Moreover they’ve pretty much got to disappear to be considered “inactive” enough to be removed; there‘s a pretty large group of ‘occasional’ admins who chip in now and then but who have clearly got over any ‘wikiholism’ they may have had—which is neither to say they’re less committed to the project’s goals nor to devalue what contributions they continue to make. As of now barely 40% of sysops have made at least thirty edits in the last two months, so there’s clearly a much lower level of “commitment“ (in terms of EC anyway) required to retain the bit than to acquire it; averaging one edit every other day, it would take something like 25–30 years to meet the typical expectations of the editors who’ve published EC-based RfA criteria.—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  19:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)