Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sadads

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

Sadads

Final (97/2/3); Closed as successful by The Rambling Man (talk) at 16:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Nomination

Sadads (talk · contribs) – So I have been trucking along on Wikipedia since 2005, and though some of my early choices and activities were not exactly within line with policy, increasingly I became more active about 3 2 years ago and have been editing obsessively over the past year and feel the quality of my contributions have increased. My favourite areas to hang out around are Category:Orphaned articles, WP:New Page Patrol, Category:Unassessed biography articles and WP:WikiProject Novels where I have maintained consistent maintenance tasks such as new page patrolling, assessing articles and of course making disambiguation pages and templates. If you want to see a little bit about what I have worked on in major content contributions check out, User:Sadads#Contributions. I am not as active in content development as I would like to be, but that is mostly because I am doing research intensive work at university. In the past I have applied AWB in massive semi-automated (and manually saved) editing, completing some of these gnomish activities (I followed the Kumioko discussions, and though some of my past edits with AWB may have gone against consensus, I have sense changed my habit of use to a far less frequency). More importantly, I think, I have recently become very involved with WP:GLAM and the WP:Ambassadors programs. With these new outreach activities along with my increased involvement in NPP I have started encountering new users in various capacities and capabilities, and as we all know new users make the most mistakes that need to be deleted, moved or sometimes stopped. I think of myself as an advocate for New Users, but as we recently learned with User:Maheshkumaryadav being empathetic with new users doesn't always work.

I think having the Administrators tools might have been useful with Mahesh and several other users and groups of articles I have encountered in the past couple months and would like to help support the community in the general backlog removal. Other Administrator tools/responsibilities I would like to use include: creation of geonotices for events related to Wikimedia DC, Wikimania DC 2012 and the Campus Ambassador Program, all of which I am actively involved in; making sure we have a little more timely response to Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled‎; and supporting the moving of pages over redirects and generally working on the deletion backlog. However, because I don't think all of these tools will be immediately needed, I intend to take it slow and make sure that I am reading up on all the policies and guidelines related to the topics: for example, I know I know almost nothing about speedy deletion except it is good for deleting vandalism and blatant advertising, because I far prefer the ability to allow users to respond that prods has. I have no intention of becoming involved in dispute resolution or incidents except in the case that new users or Ambassador program activities are involved (though I have previously weighed in on major disputes and tried to mediate, I am much better suited as a gnome and guide of new users).

Small disclaimer: in the past I have edited for cultural institutions under their pay before the form of "Wikipedian in Residence" was clarified by the community and before I became aware of the active discussion on GLAM institutions. I am far more versed on good GLAM practices then I was in the past and if I do participate in GLAM editing again, I will make sure that I do not use administrator tools in relationship to any of those edits or I will create a clearly identified separate account for my official duty to seperate it from my own editing/Admin practices, depending on what the consensus of the community is at the time of my employment (this is all theoretical).

I hope you consider my application favourably and/or fairly whatever happens to be appropriate (or both), and am ready to answer any questions you may have, though I won't be on top of a computer during the next two days like I usually am, but will still be available to check in so don't expect me couple hour or less response :P Sadads (talk) 17:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

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

A: I answered this in my self nomination

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

A: Definitely Quicksilver (novel) which was my most serious content development project. I have since become very involved in deorphaning articles, esp. Novels pages and my list of Templates created on my talk page and a plethora of dab pages which aren't listed there are probably some of my most useful recent online work. However, I think my involvement in the Ambassador program has been extremely useful, especially in my current project to set up a UK Ambassadors programme while I study abroad in Oxford, Sadads (talk) 17:32, 13 May 2011 (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: Most of the time, my own obsessive watchlist refreshing and obsession with Wikipedia is what causes me stress, especially when my real life work becomes subsumed by Wikipedia activity (as a gnome there is always work to do, and sometimes it is hard to tell myself to stop). A couple times it has gotten bad enough that I have snapped at someone or made a bunch of silly mistake, and as soon as I realize this I put myself on javascript enforced Wikibreak for several days or a week to get me a chance to refocus and get some meditation in (I am a Buddhist, but sometimes I am remiss at practicing mindfulness when computers and Wikipedia become involved :P). Now that I have become more involved in off wiki stuff, I can still keep a happy toe in the water, even if I walk away from the editing for a while. I don't think I have ever had a serious stress/irritation problems. More often my reaction is a rolling of eyes and a concentrated effort to show them what they did wrong, Sadads (talk) 17:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Additional questions from ArcAngel

4. Do you feel that pages can be moved without a discussion first to form consensus, and do you feel that being bold overrides that?

A. Yes I do feel that most pages can be moved without discussion to form consensus. In the case of at least 90% of articles, their are at most 1-2 users actively involved in maintaining an article, and in many cases no one is actively involved in the article. Thus creating discussion about a move, most of the time, falls on no ears or deaf ones because the person forgot they were involved in the article, to that extent, it just creates extra backpage chatter and backlog which is not actively helpful for the project. Now is this the case with articles with more then one major content contributors or with a sizable following of watchers? No, but if the user does move an article without consensus first, there is always the opportunity to start the discussion then and find a happy temporary solution until the final name is decided. Should high traffic articles ever be moved without consensus based on the tags: NO: readers are just as involved as users in the content and they may have opinions that can be elicited by a banner at the top of the page. And when I say high traffic I mean something like 100+ viewers a day. Not a small hurdle to cross no? Cases like this or merges of stubs, or long unreferenced and orphaned articles require lots of Boldness in my opinion, because they obviously don't have a major following and adding tags simply puts off the actually solving of the problem for a couple of years in most cases, Sadads (talk) 17:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

5. What is the most important aspect of WP:CSD#A7?

A. I would have to say "any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines". We need to give users a chance to react to our inquiries/enforcement of policies, speedy deletions when the user could feasibly believe the article belongs needs to get the opportunity of a prod or afd discussion so that the user can learn what they did wrong and why they can or can't solve it, Sadads (talk) 18:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Additional question from Keepscases

6. As a speaker of American English, why do you use British spelling such as "favourite" and "programme"?

A:Programme was an explicit request from the Wikimedia UK folks who harassed me about it in a few e-mails. Favourite is an old thing I have been doing for ages. I think part of the problem is that I tend to do a lot of work in British history and literature, which means I read a lot of British spellings. It's mostly me not conciously choosing to change, because I don't see much of a difference, I love British culture, but know full well I am an American, Sadads (talk) 23:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Additional question from TParis

7. To expand on question 3, can you give examples where you have had conflict with other users and explain how you handled yourself and, if you felt it was handled poorly, how you could have handled it differently?

A: Well, the most recent case was when I jumped on a comment made by User:Yllosubmarine on a mutual community friend's talk page, because I was watchlist stalking and assumed that the comment involved me when it was not actually intended to involve me. I immediately repaired the disruption made by my knee jerk reaction before going on Wikibreak for several days. I would rather not provide the diffs, because as I said not me in my best light (though you can find the information in her talk page or my talk page). My reaction was largely a lapse of judgement from spending a lot of time on Wiki and being off school, thus allowing my contributions to become a little too much of my own self worth (egotism). As such Wikioverload reactions go, this is the only time this particular type or reaction has happened. It happened because I allowed myself to spend too much time on Wikipedia and not doing real life stuff. Lessons learned: I think the important thing to remember on Wikipeida for me in the future is to make sure that I remember how flawed our communication system is and how easy it is to make comments about a project in the community close to someone and not realise that you are actually touching their interests. Also, I needed to remember that in actuality nothing on WIkipedia actually relates to me or my self worth . Once I produce or commit something to the project, it is suddenly the property of everyone else in the world, and I have no "real" responsibility or relationship with it besides that I am one of many contributors that happened to help polish it. My responsibility lies in continuing to polish, not in identifying with one particular contribution. All and all it was a spirtual health thing, not paying enough attention to myself and my relationship to the world and our content. For the future, continuing to explore my own Mindfulness practice should really help in preventing such situations, Sadads (talk) 08:18, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Additional question form Thparkth

8. Within the last two weeks you have received some talk page advice about the appropriate use of the A7 speedy deletion tag. Do you feel that you have a more complete understanding of its various nuances now?

A. I believe so. As I said above though, I still feel that speedy deletion is used unnecessarily and would much rather be working with Prods or AFDs, which I am far more comfortable with in process, however, I do think I understand the nuance a little bit more, and will be careful when using Admin tools to enforce Speedy deletion requests, esp. A7, which appears to be the concern of the majority of the deletion related experts here on my RFA.

9. As an administrator, how would you deal with an article that you think ought to be speedily deleted? Let's assume it's not an obvious and urgent case like an attack page or a blatant copyright violation. Let's say instead that it's yet another article about a band that hasn't played a single gig. Would you prefer to delete it yourself on sight, or tag it like a regular editor would, for another admin to deal with? There's no right answer here, but I'm interested in your reasoning.

A. I would tag that particular article with a speedy tag (except when it is clear SPAM, COPYVIO or offensive material), and then try to take a good chunk out of the backlog in speedy tags so that mine gets taken care of in a timely manner, once an admin chooses to work on the backlog, Sadads (talk) 08:18, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

10. How do you think an administrator should act if they see an article tagged with a speedy deletion tag that clearly doesn't apply, but all the same they're pretty sure the article wouldn't survive an AfD? For example, an article about a breed of dog that only has a handful of Google hits? Thanks for answering these questions!

A. I would convert the speedy tag into a prod in many cases, because as I mentioned above, it allows for specific details concerning the individual article to be communicated but does not require the participation of users that may or may not be paying attention or exist. I would then notify the user who nominated the article for speedy and place notification of prod on any relevant contributors of prose or reference content to the article, Sadads (talk) 08:18, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Additional question from Jclemens

11. Please explain WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE in your own words.

A:There are new or not so new users that don't understand Wikipedia. These users often create content with all the good intention in the world to really help distribute knowledge but fail to understand how it should be presented in Wikipedia. Its the job of those of us who really get the system on Wikipedia to shepherd the good knowledge and content into appropriate locations on Wikipedia. If we don't know how to solve the problem at hand immediately, it doesn't hurt to throw the content into a backlog which will bring someone along, eventually, who better understands how to fix the problem, because Wikipedia is a work in progress. This means that the shepherds should only be killing malicious wolves not black sheep, Sadads (talk) 19:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

General comments

• Links for Sadads: Sadads (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Sadads can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. Support, excellent candidate. Great deal of experience, both in breadth and in depth. Good temperament for an admin. -- Cirt (talk) 17:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
2. Support. I'm surprised to see that he's not an admin yet; he's an outstanding editor, and will be an equally outstanding admin. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 17:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
3. - filelakeshoe 17:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
4. I rarely support RfAs, but Sadads has made an exemplary impression on me as I've observed his work. Skomorokh 18:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
5. ABOUT TIME! harej 18:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
6. Support TBloemink (talk) 18:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
7. Randomly found out about this and its worth coming out of semi-retirement to vote here to support him. We trust him off wiki with all our reputations on both sides of the pond so why the hell not on wiki. Most definitely Support Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 18:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
8. Support – Excellent editor, and I also support harej's comment above. —mc10 (t/c) 18:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
9. Support. Good editing contributions, clearly understands how the project works. Contributions to discussions show an ability to think for himself and explain his reasoning. Importantly, passes the 'has clue' test. I see no concerns here, and I think Sadads will be an asset as an admin.--Michig (talk) 18:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
10. Support It might just be on my mind because I used English as oppose rationale in Armbrust's RfA, but your's does seem to have a little trouble being that you're a native speaker of American English. I am also concerned with your answer to User:ArcAngel's 2nd question. The most important aspect of A7 is any credible claim of importance. It doesn't have to be substatial or true, it only has to be a claim to avoid CSD using A7. Once a claim is made "this person is important because..." is enough to avoid A7 and must be taken to PROD or AfD. "Credible" would discount "important because they're sexy". All of that being said, you look like a solid editor who would benefit the 'pedia as an admin. Maybe I am biased because I am also a Richard and Kahlen fan (new book comes out in August)? Either way, your GAs and DYKs show clear understanding of quality content. I would recommend that if you do get the tools, that you not let the tools "subsume" your work.--v/r - TP 18:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

    While we're on the topic of correct English... "you're"* Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

    I caught it once, did I miss it again? I found two more where I had them wrong. I think that as Americans, as lazy as we are, we should just merge all of the "there"s, "your"s, and "two"s into single words.  :) But thanks for the heads up, fixed.--v/r - TP 19:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

    Yep, you got the one I was referring to, didn't see the others. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

11. Support - I don't see any glaring reasons to oppose, but I would like to point out to the candidate that he should make sure to know the difference between WP:G1 and WP:G3 when deleting articles. I found How did cathrin of aragon die, which the user tagged as G1, but was really vandalism. It is a very easy mistake to make, and I have no concerns that the candidate will not know the difference by the time he gets the tools. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

    That's a shame; if it had been a G1, it would have been a nice addition to WP:DAFT. Oh well... The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

    Hah! I'm horribly anal about CSD G1 but I think this is marginal. I have no idea what a "puberty filled vagina" is, do you? - filelakeshoe 16:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

12. Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
13. Support - I see no reason to oppose, and I'm glad someone gets A7. I see people missing the point of the "claim of importance" far too often. I agree that the claim needs to be plausible and significant ("my Aunt Mary is the strongest person in the world" doesn't work, neither does "can do a headstand for an hour") but I see too often where people use "not notable" as a justification for A7. -- Atama頭 20:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
14. Support. Of course. An active editor with years of experience, simply an outsanding candidate, looking at his edit count and contributions history. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 20:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
15. Support, and add the cliched "You aren't an admin already?" No concerns whatsoever; you'll do quite well with the tools. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 21:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
16. Support Level head, knows what he's doing. Brambleclawx 21:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
17. Absolutely! /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
18. Support - Long-time veteran Wikipedian, solid content contributions, nothing spotted in this candidate's body of work to cause concern.--Hokeman (talk) 21:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
19. Support. A good all-round candidate. There is no reason I can see not to support. Thryduulf (talk) 22:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
20. For as long as I have been aware of Sadads I have been impressed by him: he does a lot of great work, is communicative, has good experience with policy, and is very caring and courteous. In addition, I have met Sadads in real life, and I can say that he is a friendly and decent person: the chances of him going crazy with the tools is very unlikely, and I'm sure that with admin areas he has limited experience in, he'll ask for advice and/or do his research before branching out. I have no concerns and am pleased to support his candidacy. Acalamari 23:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
21. Support no concerns -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 23:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
22. Support - No reason not to, candidate seems knowledgeable. mauchoeagle _(c) 23:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
23. Support After looking over this candidate, and allowing time for questions to be answered, I have full trust in this candidate's ability to handle the mop.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 23:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
24. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:08, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
25. Support I don't see any reason why this editor cannot be trusted with the mop, and I think the pledge to take it slow with admin tools in areas where you aren't already familiar is the right approach. I would also suggest participating in a non-admin capacity in those areas first, such as continuing to CSD tag rather then delete on sight, even if the deletion policy would allow you to do so. Regardless, this candidate looks like a great admin prospect. Monty₈₄₅ 01:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
26. Support - No concerns at all! A great colleague with demonstrated leadership potential. My76Strat (talk) 02:08, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
27. Support – outstanding editor. Airplaneman ✈ 02:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
28. Support - your contributions are helpful to the Wikipedia community - you deserve adminship. AnnoyingOrangeandClassical Piano 03:05, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
29. Support No worries, excellent contributor. Johnbod (talk) 04:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
30. Support. Very active and helpful editor. Would make a great admin. -- œ^™ 05:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
31. your not an admin already? --Guerillero | My Talk 05:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
32. Support No reason not to, excellent editor and I'm suprised not already admin. Jamietw (talk) 05:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
33. Support - I first came across Sadads through his work on the Ambassadors progamme and was surprised that he was not already an admin. However, if he's going to be given the tools, and it looks very likely, I would like to think that he will do more background research, especially for example when mass nominating editors for autopatrolled rights, instead of leaving it up to the admins to find that many of the candidates are/were not suitable. He must learn to do this himself if he's going to have the button to accord user rights. If he would slow down a bit and apply adequate research in all areas he's going to be active in, then I see absolutely no reason not to support. A totally dedicated Wikipedian with the best of intentions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

    Acknowledged concern about autopatrol investigation, and will make sure that I do explore all areas of contribution and recent user history that is directly related to the user, Sadads (talk) 08:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

34. I see no issues and I completely trust several of the editors above me who are full of praise for the cnadidate. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
35. Support - Stellar contributor Orphan Wiki 11:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
36. Support Edits in my area of interest, know him from around, no worries whatsoever. Ceoil 11:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
37. Support - Good content creator, trustworthy and cordial. He has a good balance between work that encourages new editors and work that protects the project, and I believe would make an excellent admin. He has been submitting some of our best content creators to WP:RFP/A, which I feel is an under-appreciated task and a very important one. It's one of the few areas that is beneficial for both the project and the end users. Users given the autopatrol bit by our admin corps are appreciative and often improve their content and contributions as a result. Setting the autopatrol bit on our best contributors also helps our overworked NPPers, which is another important task. Sadads could be very helpful in this area. This work will be a particular need, as, sometime in the near future, NoomBot will be slowly submitting several hundred users to RFP/A as part of a project to help our NPPers. @Sadads, thanks for offering to help with the admin work and a big thanks for being up front about the Wikipedian in Residence stuff. As you mentioned, I do think it would be a good idea to set up a separate account if you do find yourself in a position to do any GLAM editing at a future date. Good luck. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 16:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

    Sounds good, I will definitely create an account, especially if I get the admin tools, those should not be used in relationship to any form of paid/GLAM editing, Sadads (talk) 08:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

38. Support - Fully qualified. Swarm ^X 18:45, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
39. Support. Drmies (talk) 19:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
40. Support because of length and quality of contributions in diverse areas, and support by many respected editors (who often disagree). His disclosure of past payed positions shows character.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
41. Support - Would like to have seen more work in Wikipedia space, especially dispute resolution, however what I have seen is good. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 22:41, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
42. Solid, competent. - Dank (push to talk) 23:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
43. See no issues. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
44. Support User will use good judgment with the tools and overall, this new admin will help the project.--NortyNort (Holla) 02:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
45. Support. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 12:20pm • 02:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
46. Support Great candidate for the mop. :-) Steven Walling 04:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
47. Support Most definitely. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
48. Support. Have seen this editor in passing for a very long time. No hesitation whatever in giving him the tools. Good luck. MarmadukePercy (talk) 07:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
49. Support No problems here - you're pretty clued up and certainly seem to know what you're doing, and you have plenty of experience -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
50. Support This editor has contributed over 50% of my worth of Wikipedia. Has been great ever since I came across him. Helped me build my first DYK etc. Will be a great Admin. CrossTempleJay  talk 09:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
51. Support I am acquainted with this candidate through the Ambassadors program, where he is making a solid and important contribution to Wikipedia. -- Donald Albury 10:10, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
52. Support No concerns Jebus989^✰ 12:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
53. Sorry, but your actions are just too good for wikipedia. (support) ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 16:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
54. Support — Good editor, no issues. EdJohnston (talk) 16:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
55. Support Good candidate. Courcelles 17:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
56. Support - Good contributions, see no reason to think this candidate will abuse the tools. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
57. Support, looks like he'll do a good job. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
58. Support Last year, Sadads and I were on opposing sides of a contentious AfD and the subsequent DRV; I think that he struggled a bit to express himself clearly in those discussions. However, reviewing his more recent interactions with other editors, my primary impression is that Sadads is courteous and knowledgeable. His content work (including Quicksilver (novel) and Health in Ghana) looks good; so do his answers to the RfA questions, particularly Q4. I think Sadads will do just fine as an administrator. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
59. Yes a familiar name whose long overdue. Secret ^account 22:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
60. Support No problems here. WayneSlam 23:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
61. Support Almost seems like a token gesture at this point :) I am convinced of his good character and trustworthiness. Misuse of speedy deletion is a particular concern of mine, but I am entirely satisfied that this will not be a concern in this case. Thparkth (talk) 00:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
62. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
63. Prodego ^talk 04:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
64. Has clue, will do good with mop. N419BH 05:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
65. Support. Sadads is an active editor with years of experience and high quality content contributions. Kaaveh (talk) 08:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
66. Weak support. Unconvincing reasons for adminship. However AfD comments have usually been appropriate. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
67. Of course. Neutrality^talk 09:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
68. Support - No concerns. This user has clearly benefited the project and will continue to do so. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 13:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
69. Kansan (talk) 14:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
70. Support - Helpful editor who knows what's up. I see no reason not to support; Wikipedia will be a better place with the candidate having a mop. I thank the candidate for service to date. Best Wishes, Jusdafax 16:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
71. Support - helpful and responsible editor. Racepacket (talk) 17:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
72. Support If "eager" is a detriment, it shouldn't be a disqualifier. Eager can also be seen as an asset from other points of view. As for liabilities, I see none. Assets, numerous. Net result of evaluation is overwhelmingly favourable. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
73. Support I can see no concerns; the user seems knowledgeable, trustworthy, experienced, and collegiate.  Chzz  ►  04:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
74. Support editor with an excellent temperament. I have observed him during his recent interactions with Maheshkumaryadav and he has a done a good job with a very difficult user.--Sodabottle (talk) 04:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
75. Support good answers to questions... particularly like the attitude towards CSD. Should make a good admin. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 09:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
76. Support We've worked well together in the past...Modernist (talk) 11:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
77. Support. Totally trustworthy, highly competent, very friendly. I've worked closely with Sadads quite a bit, and have no concerns at all.--ragesoss (talk) 13:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
78. Support Jclemens (talk) 00:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
79. I really don't see why not, being active for a few years helps. –BuickCenturyDriver 01:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
80. Support: I have interacted with this user a number of times and believe them to be an excellent admin candidate. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
81. Support, excellent choice for an admin, and I strongly disagree with the two opposers (and I can't even figure out what the second one is getting at). Ajraddatz (Talk) 17:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
82. Support. I appreciate the outreach work. I also think that Kudpung makes good points, above. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
83. Support- Every time I have seen this user around, they have struck me as intelligent and reasonable. Reyk _YO! 20:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
84. Support. Clear diplomatic answers, and supports new Be-Welcoming attitude; hence, WP:Article_Incubator. Erratic editing pattern: 10%-90% article, 10-80% talk-pages (past 12 mos.), but adminship is encouraged by months of >30% talk. Re Opposes, WP:MELT & I often make "3 typos" per message, so I overlook English typos. -Wikid77 04:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
85. Support. Experienced user that pretty much meets all nine points of my Personal Grading Criteria for RfA Candidates. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) ^{T or M}/_{Sign mine} 05:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
86. Support As a fellow Wikipedia Ambassador of Sadads, my interactions with him has been positive. From what I've seen so far, he has demonstrated capability and responsibility. I believe he can be trusted with the admin tools. Bejinhan talks 10:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
87. Support My interactions with Sadads have been limited, by my impression was of a thoughtful person who expresses themselves clearly. I hope Sadads uses he tools wisely. Nev1 (talk) 22:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
88. Support Automated tool count does not concern me with this user, the rest of the opposes/neutrals are appalling. -- DQ (t) (e) 12:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
89. No alarms here. Looks like they'll be a good addition to the cabal corps. GedUK  12:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
90. Support I think that this candidate has learned some things about deletion tagging during this process, and has earned my support. Cullen328 (talk) 15:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
91. Support I think the tools will be helpful for the type of work Sadads does. Our areas of editing overlap, so I know that he's very dedicated. TK (talk) 15:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
92. Support- Per Sodabottle. Dru of Id (talk) 16:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
93. Support Baseball Watcher 21:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
94. Support The Helpful One 22:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
95. Before this closes support per many above and that I'm also not concerned about the automated edit count. Orange Marlin's limp neutral is rather akin to me telling my three year old she can manage with the fork and spoon, and if she wants a knife then tough - she hasn't demonstrated any need for it because .... oh - she's never had one. Pedro :  Chat  22:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
96. Support --N KOzi^Talk 07:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
97. SupportSadads has shown ability to edit and use of admin tools would enhance this. The rationale given for actions appears to me to demonstrate self insight and reasonable temperament which suggests the community is giving the admin flag to a responsible individual, hence my support. User talk:MikeBeckett Please do ask questions! User:MikeBeckett 14:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Only seems to have been active since april last year Lots of automatic edits, sixty percent of all contributions - Users contribution history seems not related to any reason for using the tools - intends to help with the backlog is a bit of a wishy washy claim for a lifetime of authority.Off2riorob (talk) 01:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

   I would like to point out that my real activity picked up in 2009, not 2010, which means 2 years. But I can agree, I am not a lifetime authority, Sadads (talk) 10:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

   I think what Rio means by "lifetime of authority" is about the lifetime appointment of Admins, who are perceived as authority figures (particularly by new users and non-admins), not your previous experience as a Wikipedia contributor. Evilphoenix ^Talk 20:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

   Right, makes more sense reading it from that light :) Well the backlog is going to be a lifetime of work, and I think their will always be room for supporting it in any function :) Thanks for the clarification. I will certainly be one of those admins open for recall, haven't quite figured out what the criteria for that will be though, Sadads (talk) 22:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

2. Oppose - It's not a real RfA without an opposing voting icon. --Σ _☭^★ 05:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

That is, without doubt, the stupidest oppose I've ever seen. GedUK  12:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it's meant to be funny since a single oppose or two isn't going to shake this RfA. Nothing wrong with some humor.--v/r - TP 17:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I keep rolling my eyes thinking about this. I think it says something about one of the more annoying aspects of our culture on the community: there must be something wrong if everyone agrees :P I see nothing wrong with everyone agreeing, but if he wants to be a devils advocate, so be it :D Sadads (talk) 18:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

That's if you assume 'everyone' is equal to 2. --Σ _☭^★ 23:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC) On a related note, an even 100 !voters have !voted here. --Σ _☭^★ 01:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

Intend to move up to support later, I just need to get a bit more info first. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC) Moving to support

Thanks for keeping us up to date. We wait with bated breath. Ceoil 11:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Sarek, I'm practically wetting my pants! Drmies (talk) 19:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Only seems to have been active since april last year Lots of automatic edits, sixty percent of all contributions - Users contribution history seems not related to any reason for using the tools - intends to help with the backlog is a bit of a wishy washy claim for a lifetime of authority. - moved to oppose Off2riorob (talk) 21:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

"A lifetime of authority?" You're making it sound like he's applying to be chair of the Wikimedia Foundation. We're all volunteers here remember.. - filelakeshoe 23:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Surely you mean April 2 years ago? Orphan Wiki 11:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

"A lifetime of authority"? Ooh, cool, I wish I had known that years ago when I passed RfA :) Juliancolton (talk) 19:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you clarify what the problem with the level of automated edits is? They still have over 25,000 non-automated edits! That's more than many admins can say about their total edit count. Swarm ^X 19:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

1. While per the number of supports, I don't think this candidate is likely to cause any damage with the tools, I don't think I have interacted with them before, and I don't really want to make my support or oppose worthless because of one baseless claim from my part. Diego Grez (talk) 00:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

   FYI, I have been following Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature‎ and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional elements for well over a year and a half now, been NPPing for several months now which has got me more and more interaction with Prod, speedy and Request for Autopatrol (which I have been watching for several months now). I don't know what else I would need to be interacting with. Like I said, I am not particularly interested in Mediation or anti-vandalism, but I have done mediation before, and dealt with a whole range of new users, so I have interacted with enough individuals in various forms to understand when and why others have made choices for blocking. I mean the chief responsibility of Administrators is fulfilling community consensus, which, technically, means you don't need to necessarily be familiar with anything but processes, not necessarily the policies behind them (though the only major gap I have right now in that knowledge of the policies is the speedy stuff). Anyway, just some thoughts. If you would clarify what you mean by interactions, I will make a point to participate in those activities during the summer, if that makes you feel better about my use of the tools (pending a successful end of this RFA) Sadads (talk) 00:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

   Diego - In that case why not sit this one out? If you're not confident about !voting then don't. It isn't compulsory. Plutonium27 (talk) 00:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

   That's why I'm "voting" neutral, it isn't supposed to weigh any thing. --Diego Grez (talk) 00:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

   Thiis is a rather late response, but that Plutonium is what the "Neutral" section is for: users who are undecided or can't bring themselves to support or oppose but still feel the need to give their opinion on the candidate, whether brief or detailed. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 11:02pm • 13:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

2. Neutral-Another editor who has all the tools that they need. Not sure I'm convinced that they need to be an admin. But nothing to say they shouldn't. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

   What a strange view point, as I mention above in support. You do know that the "extra tools" are purely virtual, don't cost any money and that we have an inexhaustable supply of them don't you? Pedro :  Chat  22:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

3. Neutral, per Orange and Q&A. Memetic Plague (talk) 19:43, 18 May 2011 (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.