Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sephiroth BCR: Difference between revisions

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

Sephiroth BCR

Closed as successful by Cecropia (talk) 07:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC) at (64/1/2); Scheduled to end 05:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Sephiroth BCR (talk · contribs) - Sephiroth BCR is a user who I came across at WP:FLC. Looking at his demeanor and contributions, I was surprised to see that he was not an administrator yet. He actually has a couple of Featured Topics, which are certainly not easy to come by. He's got a truckload of featured lists, and had been an asset to Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga, among others. He contributes to the help desk at times as well, which is always good. With over 10,000 edits across the namespaces and a willingness to work hard in making the encyclopedia great, all in all, he's a fine user who would make a great administrator. Wizardman 03:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Graciously accepted. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

A: Initially, I plan to be as observational and non-controversial as I possibly can, dealing only with obvious cases at WP:AIV, WP:RFP, WP:CSD, and WP:AFD, and calling for aid from more experienced administrators when I hit a snag. As I get more experience, I'll tackle more controversial cases in the aforementioned topics, and start seeing where I can also utilize my tools towards. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: User:Sephiroth BCR/Accomplishments carries the major details, but as one can tell, my main contribution has been in the form of anime episode and manga chapter lists, which basically became my niche here. I was able to turn two of these sets of featured lists into featured topics: Naruto manga chapters and Seasons of YuYu Hakusho, WP:ANIME's first two featured topics, a total I hope to increase in the future. Aside from this, I've contributed to WP:VG a great deal, and the only featured article to come from my pen, Castlevania: Dawn of Sorrow, falls under the project's scope. One of my current projects is the "Sorrow series" that Dawn of Sorrow falls into, and I hope to get my third featured topic out of that (Soma Cruz (GA), Characters in Castlevania: Sorrow series (GA, at WP:FLC), Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow (GA, at WP:FAC), all from my pen). All in all, I think I've come a long way in article writing from when I first started, and tried to nominate something like that for good article status.

Aside from writing good and featured content, I would say that I am most proud of the efforts I've had at the Naruto and Bleach related articles, which initially jump-started me into editing Wikipedia. I can say I've been active at nearly all levels at these articles, reverting vandalism, being as involved as I can in discussion over the articles, and dealing with the horde of new users whose sole passion on Wikipedia is to edit the articles relating to Naruto and Bleach. After gaining some experience, I tried to reduce the amount of cruft-filled content present in order to have it come to par with Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). After it was ultimately reduced, I started more article writing, and well, you can see the results. =) Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I've never been completely stressed out per se; I've always tried to be as civil as I can be. I strongly believe conflicts can be resolved through mediation, but often find that some editors simply refuse to accept any other point of view on the matter. I've had a particular problem with editors that fail to assume good faith (or rather those that immediately assume bad faith). One instance was with User:CBFan, who often wrote inflammatory edit summaries with very new users, and stalked these users whenever they tried to make edits. I made a rather heated note on his talk page over that matter. More recently, I found User:Pilotbob's mass nomination of AfDs on fictional topics, especially when a great majority of them could have been averted with a simple inquiry on the talk page or relevant project page, to be rather disruptive, and a rather long train of discussion is on User talk:Pilotbob over the matter. In retrospect, flexibility and a more constructive sentiment would have served me better in both situations (i.e. I appreciate your anti-vandal work, but try to...). In any case, obtaining the tools will not make me more combative or demanding; on the contrary, I feel then it becomes my responsibility more than ever to be a mediator and conflict defuser. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Optional question from User:Krator:

4. In what way are Good Article, Featured Article and WikiProject ratings useful?

A: They are useful in that they give an indication of the quality of the article, especially in the case of GAs and FAs, which regardless of what subject they are or what project they fall under, are subjected to a set criteria, WP:WIAGA and WP:WIAFA respectively. This ensures a measure of consistency amongst the two. Naturally, this is not the absolute truth, especially for GA, which can vary dramatically given the reviewer of the article. With FAs, this rarely happens due to the community deciding whether the article can be passed, as well as Raul and Sandy managing the process. Altogether, the goal is consistency in producing articles of a certain quality, with good and excellent being the targets for GA and FA respectively. As for the WikiProject ratings, it is useful for an WikiProject to assess articles, as not only are more often than not the members of the WikiProject the people that can best make a qualified decision on the article's content, the importance of the article can also be determined. Both of these factors can play into what priority WikiProjects go about articles, and close-to-GA/FA or high/top importance articles can receive particular attention from the project. While I don't have much experience with A-class review, as far as I can see, it's a nice way for projects to maintain standards via having their own review process for ascertaining an article's quality. As such, the article can meet all the project-specific criteria before being nominated for featured status, where the article is subjected to the community as a whole, and gaged against WP:WIAFA, a standard for all featured articles, before they can actually become featured. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 09:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Question from User:Pedro

5. What made you think that this was worthy of deletion under WP:CSD#A7? Pedro :  Chat  10:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

A: The article had previously been deleted twice under A7 under a different name (see User talk:MiComunidad), so I thought it was a routine tagging of an article that had twice been recreated and speedily deleted under the same rationale. The specific diff you are referring to is the fourth such time; ergo, I had tagged it for deletion under A7 and deletion was the result. As for my rationale, the subject of the article was very new (September 2007), and I was highly unsure whether such sources could be found, especially as the article itself cited no sources to assert such notability. Per the previous deletions of the article, I was inclined to think that such sources would not be found. In retrospect, a more thorough examination of the article's merits was perhaps in order rather than simply agreeing with the previous deletions, but as it appeared to me, it was a user frequently attempting to recreate an article that had been previously speedy deleted. His/her username also suggested a conflict of interest issue, which also was not conducive towards supporting the article's merits. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 19:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Avruch

6. What is the difference between a ban and a block?

A: A block is a measure used to stop disruption of the encyclopedia by preventing the user or IP from editing. They are often temporary, although more serious efforts at disruption may result in longer and possibly indefinite blocks on editing. A ban is a an outright statement that the edits of the user in question are not welcome on the encyclopedia as a whole or certain parts of it. Blocks are often used to enforce bans in this regard; for instance, if a user would edit an article that he has been banned from editing, then a block would be appropriate in that situation. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 22:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

7. If another administrator removes material from an article and cites a BLP concern as the reason - but you believe the material does not violate BLP policy and should be included- what do you do?

A: First, it would be unlikely that I would be editing an article on a living person given the common choice of articles that I edit, but I will do my best to answer the question. I would leave the user in question a message on their talk page concerning the issue, discuss our points at length, and see whether I am satisfied by his response over whether the material violates WP:BLP or not. If I am not, then I can pursue other venues such as WP:BLPN, WP:THIRD, and WP:RFC, and see how it resolves as such. For me, I believe the issue wouldn't pass the discussion stage, and likely would yield the issue unless I was absolutely sure that I was correct, and thus would bring the discussion to the aforementioned venues. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 22:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

8. If you wish to close an AfD that is still open after 7 days but you believe the consensus is against current policy, what action should you take?

A: If I felt as such, I would have placed my concerns on the AfD in question beforehand. If I really, really felt that the consensus was not in line with policy, then I would take the article to WP:DRV. That said, I can't imagine a situation where the consensus would be so overwhelmingly against policy that this would be necessitated. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 22:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

9. What is your opinion on administrator recall?

A: My primary problem is the drama associated with the process, which has potential to be abused, and I believe if I ever get really out of line, then ArbCom will sort me out. That said, as the community is giving me the position, I feel my position is subject to the community's consent, and will place myself in the category as a sign of good faith in that consent. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 22:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Question from User:Iterator12n

10. Could you, in a few sentences, tell us what you consider "encyclopedic," and what not?

A: Is this in regards to articles or to content? For articles, if the article is a subject of multiple independent, reliable, verifiable sources, then it meets the notability criteria. Naturally, this is subject to exceptions, such as very recent events, which sometimes receive a torrent of content, and are subsequently forgotten the next week. In this case, the material would be merged to the relevant pages. There are also more often than not a great deal of sourcing on subjects that would violate WP:NOT, such as how-to guides, directories, and related subjects that does not have a place in the encyclopedia. For content, the material present must be able to be verified by reliable sources. However, undue weight should not be given to any part of the topic per WP:NPOV, and attempting to include exceptional amounts of information, regardless of whether it is sourced properly, is not warranted. The information should only be included so long as it contributes towards giving appropriate weight to all points of view. There are also cases where the information included is trivial in terms of giving a summary of that aspect of the topic, and does not contribute towards the general understanding of that aspect; ergo, it should not be included, even if it is sourced properly. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 23:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Thoughtful. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 00:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Question from User:Dr.Kane:

11. What are your ambitions and goals should you be successfully confirmed as an admin? Also, what was your biggest mistake as an editor and how did you handle it? And last but not least, what is your view on the censoring of images (including but not limited to breast, genatalia, etc) that religious people might view as obscene and/or inappropiate?

A: Ultimately, my ambition would be making the encyclopedia a better encyclopedia. Having the tools only allows me more options in terms of how I can help the encyclopedia. I don't have any particular goals per se, although User:Durova's triple crown awards are rather cool accolades to shoot for (the 15 DYK - 15 GA - 15 FC one specifically). In regards to goals or ambitions like being a bureaucrat or something of the sort, I have no particular ambition to this end, but time will tell better answers than the one right here. As for my biggest mistake, I haven't really had any moment where I did something that I completely freaked out over. One notable instance was when I nominated Naruto: Clash of Ninja at WP:GAN, and although I had the article moved from Naruto: Clash of Ninja (video game) through {{db-move}}, I forgot to ask for a move of the talk page also, and I waited for the db-move I placed on the talk page to be picked up by an administrator so I could place the GA nomination tag on the talk page. In retrospect, it wouldn't have mattered really, as even if my nomination had been struck since I didn't follow the nomination procedure, I could have renominated it immediately as the talk page was moved. This wasn't really a big mistake in that sense, but I did worry about it a bit too much. Having the tools would have averted it entirely. =p As for the censoring of images, I believe it is inappropriate so long as the image is fulfilling an encyclopedic purpose; for instance, it is subject to critical commentary in the text and heightens a reader's comprehension of the article. Furthermore, we're here to create an encyclopedia, not cater to a particular group of readers that have the choice whether to view such articles in the first place. If they wish to view such an article, they should be aware of what they are about to view. We're not Conservapedia, and by no stretch of the imagination should we be. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Follow up: Definitely agree with you that wikipedia should not come close to Conservapedia in any way, shape, or form. Dr.Kane (talk) 03:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Wikipedia shouldn't be censored either. In reality it is though. For instance the Jyllands-Posten Mohammed cartoons, after much discussion no doubt, are only shown in a version too small to actually read on their wikipage [1] while full size versions are only available 'off site' on the Assyrian International News agency Site. We're very brave in standing up to methodists and quakers, less so other religions it seems. As you've just written "As for the censoring of images, I believe it is inappropriate so long as the image is fulfilling an encyclopedic purpose; for instance, it is subject to critical commentary in the text and heightens a reader's comprehension of the article. Furthermore, we're here to create an encyclopedia, not cater to a particular group of readers that have the choice whether to view such articles in the first place. If they wish to view such an article, they should be aware of what they are about to view." can I ask where you stand on the cartoons issue? Nick mallory (talk) 04:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify before I answer, what exactly was censored? That looks pretty full size to me. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Look at the (very small) size they appear in the article. I'm not trying to trip you up here and I'll support your adminship. My point is that the pressure for censorship doesn't come from the type of people who write Conservapedia. Nick mallory (talk) 10:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I would still say that any censoring in this case is inappropriate. After going through the arguments on the various talk and subpages of the aforementioned article, a large majority of opposes were that we were "offending" or "insulting" Islam. Yes, perhaps we are, but that is lending undue weight to a point of view, which cannot be condoned per WP:NPOV, as we are catering to a group (Muslims) with a very specific viewpoint without being able to properly represent the other side of the coin (which would want the image shown, creating an untenable situation). A similar example is Piss Christ, which I am sure many Christians would find incredibly insulting, but we portray anyway for the sake of its value in offering a form of visual identification for the subject of the article that heightens understanding of the text. So long as we are following the law (i.e. we can't put a picture of child pornography on the child pornography article) and the picture proves its encyclopedic value, then I believe it is appropriate for inclusion. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 10:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

12. What do you want Wikipedia to be three years from now? Marlith ^T/C 05:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

A: A better, bigger, higher quality encyclopedia for everyone that still has this wonderful phenomenon that any person with a computer can see a page they like, click "edit this page," and see their work shown for the world at hand to see. We'll certainly never be perfect in any aspect whatsoever, whether it is our policies, articles, or whatnot, but inexplicably, Wikipedia works, and so long as we keep true to our mission statement in adding onto this encyclopedia, I believe it will continue to work. We can't be the sum of human knowledge, but we can get far closer to that lofty goal than anything else, and that anyone can come and participate and aid here is the principal item that I hope endures into the future. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

General comments

• See Sephiroth BCR's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Sephiroth BCR: Sephiroth BCR (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Sephiroth BCR before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. Support as nom. Wizardman 05:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Support Was incredibly cool and level-headed in my first interaction with him under what I imagine to be a lot of stress/anger. I trust that he can handle the rigors of adminship. hbdragon88 (talk) 06:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
3. Support Excellent user; seen him around, and he seems very trustworthy. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 06:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
4. Seen the candidate around doing first-rate main space work. AfD contribs look good, with calm judgement consistently on display. Support, and I do hope his article contributions will not suffer as he takes on administrative work. PeaceNT (talk) 06:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
5. Support Not a lot of experience with this editor, but I've read over his contributions and he looks like he will make a fine admin. Trusilver (talk) 06:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
6. Support Seems to be of the quality needed for admin docboat (talk) 06:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
7. Support. Good user. -- Mentifisto 07:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
8. Thought-you-were-already Support Good luck! GlassCobra 07:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
9. Support - He even told me about fixing something at the stint I did at the Signpost. :) Rudget. 07:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
10. Support. Per the nom, per answers to the Questions, per the great content quality contributions to the project. Cirt (talk) 08:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC).
11. Support. I actually thought he already was, cliched as it might sound. Excellent user, no problems here. BLACKKITE 09:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
12. Support - User:Krator (t c) 09:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
13. Support per nom. Spencer^TC 11:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
14. Support. Good luck. Malinaccier Public (talk) 13:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
15. Support based on answers. John Carter (talk) 15:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
16. Support because I alreay thought you were one. Good luck! Djskein79 (talk) 16:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
17. Support per above. NHRHS2010 talk 21:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
18. Support Insert cliche here... Excellent candidate. Woody (talk) 21:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
19. Support Jmlk17 21:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
20. Support. bibliomaniac15 23:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
21. Support, also in view of the answer to Q10. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 00:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
22. Support-because-I-am-surprised-that-you-were-not-an-admin-already! The Placebo Effect (talk) 01:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
23. Support excellent user, trustworthy. Will make a excellent admin. Good luck. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 04:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
24. Full Support Great work already, will do awesome with the mop. Gonzo_fan200704:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
25. Support He's got a lot of experience and overall is a classy editor. Guldenat (talk) 07:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
26. Support I did notice a couple of A7 speedy requests that I think were, well, a bit "dodgy". However this is minor in comparison to everything else, and you answers to the various questions above have been thoughtful, insightful and policy based. Good job. Best Wishes. Pedro :  Chat  08:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
27. Support. Seen him round the traps and he knows his stuff. Plus, fantastic answer to #9. Having admin recall present is kind of a necessary evil, but I have complete faith that we won't be looking to demote you based on your value to the 'pedia. --rm 'w avu 10:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
28. Support No problems here. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 12:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
29. Support Okay. —αἰτίας •discussion• 15:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
30. Support For all the reasons above. DavidJJJ (talk) 20:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
31. Support per reasons already stated above. Editor won't abuse the new tools. Also, very good answers to questions 10 and 11, IMO. Keeper | 76 21:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
32. Support First off, you're a good contributor. Second, you love Bleach. --Sharkface217 01:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
33. Support Everything seems good... Dr.Kane (talk) 03:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
34. Strong support - prolific contributor. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 04:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
35. Support, excellent contributor, no indication that he will abuse the tools. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 04:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
36. Absolutely - FT = Hell yes. Dihydrogen Monoxide 04:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
37. Support Sure. Nick mallory (talk) 10:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
38. Support User knowledge of AfD and other procedures indicates strong knowledge of policies. VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 12:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
39. Support - Answers to questions + WP:DEAL. Gromlakh (talk) 00:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
40. Support, from my own interactions with Sephiroth in several articles, I've found him to be an ideal person for adminship as he has a good knowledge of policies, a even temper, a willingness to help others learn, and is dedicated to making great quality articles. Collectonian (talk) 10:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
41. Support per the first sentence of his answer to question 8. Not only is this user a thinking and responsible Wikipedian, but he seems determined to continue being so if given the mop. - Revolving Bugbear 14:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
42. Support very solid work, mature and thoughtful responses. Pundit|utter 17:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
43. Support A really solid candidate who will be an excellent admin. GRB1972 (talk) 20:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
44. Support. I see no problems with giving this user the tools. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 20:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
45. Niyant (talk) 22:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
46. Support. good 'pedia builder. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
47. Support. I first had occasion to look closely through the contributions of this editor at his editor review and liked what I saw. I like what he's been doing since then. He seems very much on top of what he does. That said, I also like his stated intent in answer 1 to work "only with obvious cases" as he becomes more familiar with policy. Particularly with CSDs, which for obvious reasons seldom get the scrutiny of AfD, thorough knowledge of policy is essential. My observation of this editor's contributions suggest that he will be duly cautious as his understanding evolves. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
48. Support. I've seen this user in several places and developed a good impression of them. Additionally, I found their answers interesting and informative, particularly 10 & 11.--Kateshortforbob 16:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
49. Support Everything seems to be in order, NEXT! // F9T 18:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
50. Support Great article work! Midorihana^{~いいですね？} 22:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
51. Support  Stormin' Foreman ^{Got something to say?} 01:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
52. Support Good user. Ohmpandya (Talk to Me...) 03:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
53. Support - deserves the tools.   jj137 ^♠ 03:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
54. Support. Good editor who would put the tools to good use. Doczilla (talk) 04:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
55. Support First rate work on articles, shows a clear desire to continue to do so. Also shows a clear understanding of policy, and there is no doubt about his ability to use a mop correctly. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
56. Hi. I look forward to collaborating someday. The Transhumanist 05:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
57. Support - we could really use another admin with some expertise on what's notable in Manga/Anime, (see e.g., Monster (manga)), and one with a great record to boot. Bearian (talk) 23:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
58. Support Wikidude57 Join The Brawl!!! 15:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

    Isn't this in the wrong section? Dreamy ^§ 17:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

    I've left a note on this user's talk page about it, but haven't got a response. Is it correct to assume good faith and move it to the "support" section, or wait for the user himself/herself to move it? Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 18:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

    I decided to be bold and move this to support, since it seemed like an honest mistake. Wizardman 01:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

59. Support --Mhking (talk) 03:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
60. Of course. Acalamari 19:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
61. Support - hahnchen 19:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
62. Support, looks good. — Xy7 (talk) 19:35, 15 January 2008
63. Support. Two featured topics is more that I will ever achieve. Good luck! _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN}^{play it cool.} 22:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
64. Support Lawrence Cohen 00:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Candidate is a niche contributor, should seek experience outside of manga/anime. Separa (talk) 00:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

   Huh? Well, most users tend to stick to writing article they are comfortable with. Like, i wouldn't be writing an article on plants, it'd be a waste of time for both me and the plant article. Haven't seen this as a reason to oppose before, though, it's gotten me curious. Wizardman 03:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

   I've seen sephiroth around articles I edit in, so I don't know what you're talking about. I don't go near the manga articles, so he must have been in and around music or film articles. I tend to agree with this rationale, though only with backup support. With article writing, one should only look to write articles (note: not just copyedit) articles they feel comfortable doing so. I could go and copyedit any article, but I wouldn't be right to go and write a paragraph in the Dinosaur article. --rm 'w avu 08:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

   Yes, you're asking him to do things he's neither good at or comfortable doing. I wouldn't be able to edit articles relating to chemicals or stuff like that becuase I don't know anything about them.--Phoenix-wiki 15:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

   I somehow perceive one's expertise in one particular niche as an asset, and not a liability... Pundit|utter 17:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

1. You'll be a helpful addition to the team, but I recall many instances at Bleach (manga) in which you have reverted good-faith edits without comment using popups or TW. The reversions themselves were always correct - I agreed with them, anyway - but the page draws a lot of inexperienced users, and I feel that things got bitey at times. Upon reviewing the history of the page, I notice that this has been less common of late. Can you comment on the (former) practice? I will almost certainly switch to support, but I felt it was important to bring this up. Dekimasuよ! 05:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

   Yeah, when I initially started looking for tools for reverting vandalism (about seven to eight months ago), my initial choice was popups, as that appeared to be the easiest one to use. As you've stated, the inability to provide an edit summary is a problem with such reversions, and after I got Twinkle, I rarely used popups except in cases where the vandalism was explicit, and it was easier to revert with popups than with Twinkle. I've found that I've changed from back then at least in regarding vandalism, as I nearly always state an edit summary when I revert using Twinkle, unless I construe the edit as blatant vandalism, in which case I will use the appropriate Twinkle tab to represent this. Per my answer in Q3, I've had an interaction with a user that used very inflammatory edit summaries that were immensely bitey, and I found it to be rather repugnant. As such, I always state my rationale for reverting in my edit summary, and if I forget or accidentally fail to enter one, I will be sure to leave a message on the talk page of the user in question explaining my revert. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

2. Neutral per Dekimasu. Dreamy ^§ 00:28, 11 January 2008 (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.