Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sebwite

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

Sebwite

FINAL (13/52/9); closed 16:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC) by EVula

Nomination

Sebwite (talk · contribs) – Self nomination. I am a user who has been around for several years. I have made quite a lot of contributions to existing articles, created several hundred articles (and become more familiar with notability and sourcing guidelines over time), created many templates, written many essays, and discussed many possible proposals. I have participated in New Page Patrol at times too. While at times, I have participated in AfDs, I have seldom proposed any articles for deletion, simply because I feel it is better if possible to try to salvage an article than to delete it. However, I have marked a lot of pages for speedy deletion during new page patrol that obviously do not belong, and marked many more for prod, hoping that before the prod expires that the creator would improve the article to meet inclusion guidelines. I have also, in my personal life (not visible online), coached several people to becoming good Wikipedia contributors. Sebwite (talk) 01:48, 5 November 2009 (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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I would like to participate in closing deletion and other similar discussions, reviewing block situations, dealing with page protections, and other similar functions.

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

A: In the beginning, I was into creating articles, and over the years, I created several hundred articles. That is a major contribution. But that is not all. I have also organized a lot of related articles from being in an incoherent mess to being easy to find. As part of this effort, I created a lot of navboxes to make articles easy to find for readers of related articles. This also has the effect of de-orphaning those that are orphaned. I have written many essays, all with the intention of improving Wikipedia. The purpose of these essays is to teach and to make Wikipedia a more peaceful environment for editors. I have also written many proposals, either on the talk pages of existing project pages or as new ones. I am always looking for new things I can do to help. I have written some instructional pages, giving advice on how to write better articles, make articles better conform to Wikipedia standards, and to save articles from possible deletion. I have participated in AfDs, sometimes, mostly for the purpose of trying to save articles rather than getting them deleted. Outside of cyberspace, I have coached several acquaintences on how to be really good editors (though I do not get involved in their editing in order to avoid conflict of interest; in fact, I don't know the usernames of most of these people). My motivation behind all this is to improve Wikipedia.

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: Of course, some of my edits have not been liked by others. But I know I cannot please everyone. I went through this very early on in my Wiki life as I wrote many articles that were proposed for deletion, and I actually managed to reach a compromise not to delete the articles, but to merge them. At a later date, when I was able to make them better conform to Wikipedia standards (by providing sources), I was able to unmerge and improve them. If ever there is an edit war about to occur, I am always careful not to break 3RR. I try as much as possible to discuss the matter with the other parties involved and come to a compromise. I feel that all editors are equal, and the only way there can be any success is by compromise. No one is king and no one can "bully" their way to having it how they want. I have made many proposals that have been rejected, but that is okay, because I see this as an opportunity to talk it over and try something else. These rejections have resulted in new ideas that have very often turned into something better. Each time this happens, I learn something new. The way I plan to deal with problems in the future is to look for more compromises and better solutions.

Additional optional questions from Gigs

4. If you could add a new speedy deletion criteria, what would it be?

A: I have considered in the past if pages written blatantly in a fashion other than that of an encyclopedia should be speedied. For example, this includes blatant how-to pages (e.g. a page doing nothing but giving instructions on how to solve a Rubik's Cube). At the same time, I will bring up that there are some CSD that I feel should be eliminated or curtailed, most notably the one for recreation of previously deleted material. While I do support deleting, for example, an autobiography that was created once, and following deletion, is created again, many recreations are of pages that one in good faith is trying to modify so they meet inclusion guidelines, or in some cases, the same title is being used with an unrelated subject. I have seen speedy deletion overused in these cases in the past.

Additional optional questions from 7

5. What is your interpretation of the policy WP:OWN, and do you feel this talk page comment when you were first building List of Rescue 911 episodes was consistent with that policy? Note: I am not implying that there is anything wrong with the talkpage comment - I am just wondering if your feeling toward ownership has evolved during your time here.

A: I very much support WP:OWN, so much that I have mentioned it in many discussions, as well as some essays (including one I created the other day). However, there are many articles or groups of articles I have created over the years that are major projects, but I have found little or no help in getting them them written. This does not imply ownership, just lack of interest or knowledge that they exist. In fact, I have found that knowledge of their existence is one of the major issues facing new articles, and many of them face it for years to come. This led me to write the instructional page Wikipedia:Drawing attention to new pages, which encourages page creators to look for contributions from others, and addresses that articles are not owned. The nutshell box on the page states "The best articles on Wikipedia are worked on by multiple editors. It is to the benefit of yourself and all others if others are able to find and work on the article you create."

5b. Looking at the same article: List of Rescue 911 episodes - you created it and have made 458 edits to it, but you don't have it listed among the many pages that you have created on your user page. Any reason?

A: This is not a complete list. It is not practical to list 250+ article on my homepage. A complete list, however, is available here. It took 458 edits simply because it is a long list that without help took weeks to finish. Once I got the list done, I have moved on to working on other projects and pretty much left this behind. But I still have it on my watchlist, and it is music to my ears to see others helping to improve it now.

Additional optional question from Coffee

6. If you were to close an AFD, on a BLP, where there is no easily determined consensus (such as this) how would you close it?

A: I would first evaluate the person's notability (based on guidelines and comments), whether or not there should even be an article about that person, as that is one really serious concern in articles on human beings. Next, I would try to determine if the article had any potentially damaging libelous information about that person, since it is important that Wikipedia contain no unsourced harmful information on human beings. I would also consider whether or not the article was written to promote the person. If I find the article is neither promotionary or libelous, I would look to determine if the sources provided qualify under WP:RS guidelines, and whether or not the person qualifies under all notability subguidelines (e.g. WP:BIO, WP:PROF, WP:MUSIC). While I would be required to follow these, I would not overlook good-faith comments, because that is the purpose of the AfD. If the article was worthy of keeping but had some neutrality issues that could be fixed, I would tag it with {{POV}}. There are times when an AfD either needs to be "relisted," thereby giving another week for discussion in hopes of a consensus, or to be closed altogether with no consensus. I have participated in some AfDs in which both of these scenarios have occurred. Generally when an AfD is closed with no consensus, it defaults to keep. But when it is a BLP article, it closes as delete.

I think you misunderstood my question. What I was trying to say was: What would be your set standard for closing an AFD of this nature? --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 00:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional question from Robofish

7. I notice you have written many essays on deletion and notability issues. Could you summarise here, in approximately one paragraph, your views on notability in Wikipedia?

A: Notability on Wikipedia means that the integrity of Wikipedia's mission is maintained along with the presence of an article on the subject. There are several factors that comprise notability. Basically, proof of accuracy and neutrality are important. For one thing, we do not want hoaxes, but that is not Wikipedia's most serious problem. Reliable sources are required for just that. Reliable sources are those that are trusted by society, that provide factual information on the subject. Having multiple sources independent of the subject and of each other is of prime importance as it further serves to ensure accuracy and to demonstrate society's neutral viewpoint of the subject. It is true that with many subjects it is possible to verify just the fact that they exist, either from their own website or from a blog with a series of anecdotes. But this does not guarantee there is no exaggeration either in favor of or against the subject. Still, this is not all. There are some topics for which there are multiple, reliable sources, and there is no difficulty in finding them. But no matter how many of them you put together, such an article cannot meet encyclopedia guidelines, because its inclusion would not be encyclopedic in style. WP:NOT addresses that issue and explains a number of things Wikipedia is not. For example, there are many published books that give instructions on how to solve a Rubik's cube. But Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, so no matter how many of these books you cite, writing an article titled "How to solve a rubik's cube" is not appropriate. Given all this, I feel that quite a lot of information can be included on Wikipedia just by understanding these most basic guidelines, and many things that in one form cannot may be able to be included some other way.

Additional question from Keepscases

8. You are involved with a lot of articles on public places in Maryland. What are your thoughts on the casinos that are supposedly coming to Maryland within the next year or so? Would you be interested in working on articles on them?

A: To start, I feel that Wikipedia is not the appropriate place to discuss my personal political views. My views on casinos or any other political topic are irrelevant to my competency at being an administrator. Sure, it is possible that I may be interested in working on articles about Maryland's casinos one day, that, too, is irrelevant to my competency at being an administrator. Per WP:NOTMYSPACE guidelines, I do not feel it is proper to talk politics on Wikipedia. But if you would like to provide me an email address (at my talk page) where I can contact you outside of Wikipedia, I can let you know my opinion on the slots issue. Still, this should not factor in to how you comment on this board, as this discussion is about whether or not I am competent enough to assume administrative duties.

How do you reconcile this answer with your collection of userboxes? Keepscases (talk) 23:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from Bwilkins

9. Would you be willing to advise bureaucrats in private of any alternate account that you may have, or may create in the future if you become an administrator?

A: It depends on the situation. I have already wondered about, if I were to be an administrator, if I should have two separate role accounts, one for edits to articles, and one for administrative duties, so that my contributions do not get confused (with a note on the home page of each stating this).

Just to clarify, when you say "it depends on the situation" you're not saying that there are situations in which you would have an alternate account and not declare it in any fashion, are you? -- Atama頭 01:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Additional questions from Davewild

10. I am concerned over your answer to question 6, so consider these as follow up questions. What is the job of the admin who closes an AFD?

A: I have actually written about this in an essay already, which you can reach at Wikipedia:ABOUTADMIN. To give the best anology, an administrator is like a judge in a jury trial. S/he may not make his/her own rules, or make a decision based on his/her own biased beliefs. S/he must follow the recommendations of those who commented during the discussion. If administrators were allowed to go ahead and close AfDs as they wished, the comments from others would be pointless. I also feel that it is important for the closing admin to state why s/he reached that conclusion and not just say "the result was keep/delete," something I would do in every AfD I close. For the closing admin to not give a reason is no better than one of those who commented during the discussion simply saying "keep" or "delete." See WP:NOREASON for more details on this.

11. You come to an AFD intending to close it. Discussion is pretty evenly split with the debate focusing on whether the article meets the notability guidelines. On studying the article, sources and AFD discussion your personal opinion is that the article should be deleted as failing the notability guidelines. What do you do?

A: If my personal opinion were to delete, which will inevitably happen in some cases, I would go ahead and delete the article. But articles that seem non-notable at one time may become notable later, or the subject may currently be notable, but just needs some improvement. If I really had to delete the article, I would, at the very least, offer to userfy it to the creator's userspace, and possibly that of other major contributors (unless it is a BLP or a subject with issues of similar sensitivity). This way, the creator would have a chance to make necessary improvements to reintroduce it, merge it, or add bits of it to places where they could belong. If only a small amount of comment was received, it is necessary in most cases to relist the discussion so a consensus can be reached. If quite a large amount of discussion was made, and no consensus was reached, the discussion should probably be closed as "no consensus." In this case, it defaults to "keep" unless it is a BLP article, in which case, it is deleted.

Additional optional questions from  Btilm 

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

A: A block is a measure that can be implemented by a single administrator that is most often used for dealing with disruptive behavior by an editor. It is normal implemented after the editor has been warned several times about their behavior, and can last for varying lengths of time or even be indefinite. A ban is the loss of an editor's privileges to edit a certain page, group of pages, or all or Wikipedia in some cases. It can last for varying lengths of time, and can only be implemented following consensus.

13. When should cool down blocks be used and why?

A: Cool down blocks are not permitted (see WP:COOLDOWN). But an angry editor who is being disruptive can be blocked in accordance with blocking guidelines.

14. What is your opinion about notability as it relates to the inclusion/exclusion of content on Wikipedia? That is, what do you think an ideal Wikipedia would look like in terms of content? Do you feel that anything the meets the general notability guidelines should be allowed (excluding what Wikipedia is not type articles), or do you feel that some things aren't notable even if they have been covered in depth by multiple reliable sources? Are there any types of articles that you feel are automatically notable; that is, worthy of inclusion just by being verifiable without direct proof of in depth coverage in multiple reliable sources? (To be clear, I am looking for your personal opinion, and hopefully an insight to the way you think, not a restatement of current policy.)

A: An ideal Wikipedia would be, for the most part, accurate and unbiased as much as possible. It would also have proper spelling and grammar, display good writing skills, be well-linked, and overall be user-friendly, though these characteristics are not a matter of notability. There are certain types of things that may meet GNG, but I feel they should still not be included. I have discussed these in certain places, such as the essay I wrote Run-of-the-mill. It is about items that are so common, that if there were to be an article on each one, that the articles in total would comprise a significant percentage of all the Wikipedia articles. For example, while it is possible that there is published information on every small shopping center in the world, it is not practical to have an article on every small shopping center. High school athletes make regular news as games in which they play are published in the sports sections of local newspapers. But you simply cannot have an article on every high school athlete. On the other hand, I now feel that being a local interest should not in itself be a reason for disqualifying a subject. When I first wrote this proposal, I made it sound like it should, but I later changed my mind following a discussion with several others. One of the reasons why I feel this way is because it is very hard to define what is "local" versus being of interest to a broader region, and where to draw the line. Obviously, a national interest is not local, but every part of the world has towns, cities, and other types of divisions (varying from place to place) which have different meanings in different situations. Even drawing the line between a a city and town, a town and a village, and so on is not straightforward. So my conclusion is that a properly sourced article on a local interest should be allowed if it meets all other inclusion guidelines. But something that is extremely commonplace (whether locality is a factor or not) should have some factor to limit the number of articles. As to what that is, a discussion is still in progress, and drawing that line is not exactly easy. But it has to stop short of having an article on every person, every house, and every one of the 125 billion galaxies in space.

Additional question from Ktr101

15. On what grounds do you feel that personal opinion is a reasonable excuse to close an AFD? Note:Sebwite has asked for claification here so here goes: Why do you think personal opinion should be used in closing an AFD?

A: There are many ways in which certain policies and guidelines can be interpreted, and interpretations can vary from one person to the next. AfDs take place generally because there is uncertainty whether or not the article should be included. This still may not come clear following a week of discussion, which is standard. But AfDs and similar discussions are not intended to last indefinitely; they are supposed to be closed in a week after they start. Someone has to make that close, and that can only be an administrator. So when the outcome would otherwise be unclear, the closing administrator has to be the one cast the "final vote." Sometimes, it is necessary to continue an AfD for another week, stating "relisted in order to reach a consensus." Other times, it is necessary to close as no consensus. Sebwite (talk) 19:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

General comments

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

---

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

Discussion

• Edit stats posted on the talk page.  7  03:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• He may be on to something with the blatant how-to and other not-encyclopedia CSD... Anybody want to bring this up at WT:CSD?--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 14:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• I think it's a good idea, I see such articles every once in awhile while patrolling proposed deletions and they should be speediable. Look at How to use an ipod, it's literally a numbered list in how to get an iPod set up. An article like that would never have any chance of becoming encyclopedic. -- Atama頭 17:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Just use {{db|WP is not a how-to guide}} -- œ^™ 11:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• WP:NOT is explicitly not a speedy criteria... Tim Song (talk) 21:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Support

Support solid editor with experience in policy areas. Triplestop x3 02:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Support--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 04:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

1. Weak Support: Solid record in policy areas but Needs more edits on talk pages. - Ret.Prof (talk) 09:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

   Support for a longterm cluefull editor. ϢereSpielChequers 09:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

   Who may not be ready yet for adminship. ϢereSpielChequers 09:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

   Support I do not find the concern of lack of editing activity to be a problem to myself. The editor gives a solid and continous approach to editing over the long term. At this time i do not have reason to oppose.[User:Ottawa4ever|Ottawa4ever]] (talk) 12:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC) striking per 11 Ottawa4ever (talk) 10:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

2. Support Agree with Ottawa4ever. Pikiwyn ^talk 13:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

   Weak Support per experience, talk page balance is a concern but not enough to stop support. Doc Quintana (talk) 14:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC) Moved to neutral per #13. Doc Quintana (talk) 17:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

3. Strong Support I have full confidence that Sebwite can easily communicate in a civil and thoughtful way with any user that he interacts with. I have interacted with him in the past and it's always been a good experience. Gigs (talk) 14:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
4. Support Looks okay to me. So far I don't see any red flags. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
5. Support - seems fine to me, just needs some more experience in some areas. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 17:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

   Support Seems alright to me. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

   Moving to neutral per 6 and 11. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

   Weak Support - I was going to go neutral due to the exceptionally low amount of communication with other editors (less than 7% of your edits). But what little communication you've had seems civil enough. Assuming no other legitimate concerns are raised I'll tentatively give my support. -- Atama頭 17:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC) _{Switching to oppose. -- Atama頭 01:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)}

6. No reason to anticipate serious problems, solid and lengthy contribution history. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

   Moved to Neutral No problems here and unlikely to misuse the tools, and barring a few minor CSD concerns mentioned, I see no other reason to oppose. AtheWeatherman 21:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

7. Support - well qualified and great answers to my questions.  7  22:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

   Support, and opposers, please stop relying on numbers to make a decision. Majorly talk 22:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)Q11 - ouch. Majorly talk 14:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

8. Support - Highly experienced user, don't see how the relatively low activity makes him less competent as an admin. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
9. I'm sorry to see you go through this. I have a feeling you knew the right answers to those questions, but felt pressured and wrote something you thought that the community might have wanted to hear. Besides the questions, I think you're a fine candidate. Either way, if you actually didn't know the right answers before, you clearly do now that 37 people have opposed over it. So, I don't think giving you the tools would be an issue. iMatthew ^talk at 03:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

   Just for the record, I opposed based on his shoddy CSD work before Q11 ever became an issue. ArcAngel (talk) 04:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

10. Support per User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards, which I will explain momentarily. I do acknowledge the strong consensus to oppose below and I do seem some opposable weak arguments like this in something that closed as a solid keep and this is also not compelling per Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance in that having 40,000 plus articles is not a problem on a site that boasts having millions of articles and that seeks to catalog all of human knowledge, but this argument seems reasonable, although please remember to use edit summaries. Now on the clearly positive side of things, the candidate has never been blocked, has a soundly expressed constructive and intelligent attitude on his userpage ("All articles created in good faith should be given a chance before they are considered for deletion....I oppose overzealous deletion proposals, and feel that deletion should be a last resort...Previously deleted material can be recreated and improved, and if so, should be given a chance, and not speedy deleted..."), has received a barnstar, and is an article, list, essay, and template creator, i.e. here to help build Wikipedia. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
11. Support. Although this RfA is numerically unsustainable at this point, I feel compelled to point out that the multiple opposes based primarily on the answer to question 11 may be based upon a misreading. Specifically, opposers are expressing concern about the candidate's referring to his "personal opinion" being in favor of deletion, in his response. But question 11 itself posited an AfD in which "on studying the article, sources and AFD discussion your personal opinion is that the article should be deleted as failing the notability guidelines." Thus, (1) Sebwite did not inject his own opinion into the answer, as it was presumed in the question, and (2) the "opinion" in question did not mean his individual personal inclinations, but his conclusion as to the proper outcome based on the notability guidelines. Administrators are supposed to take the content guidelines, along with the comments, into account in closing AfDs. In other answers as well, I think that references to the candidate's personal opinion were meant as references to his understanding of policy, rather than a statement that he would misuse personal opinions as a basis for closures. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

    So you're saying that, for example, an administrator comes to an AfD where the discussion of the article is numerically split, let's say 6 people want to keep and 6 people want to delete, and the administrator's opinion is that the article fails the notability guideline. That admin should close as delete even if in the course of the discussion the people arguing for the article to be kept make solid arguments based on policy, and the people asking for deletion do so because they "don't like it" or other spurious arguments. If that's the case, what's the point of the discussion? Is the discussion simply meant to sway the personal opinion of the administrator who comes along to close the article? I think you're the one who is misreading question 11. Nowhere in Sebwite's answer (or your explanation) is the substance of the arguments mentioned, and that is why the answer to 11 is both wrong and troubling for an administrator who wants to close AfDs. -- Atama頭 18:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

12. Support Can fix concerns in oppose area. — JoJo • Talk • 19:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
13. Support. As for question 6, I would delete if there is any suggestion the subject of the article has requested deletion. In fact I think the default for biographical articles should be to delete if no consensus. Bwrs (talk) 05:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Sebwite has made some excellent contributions to the project, mainly the article namespace. Despite these contributions, I notice you have an remarkably low number of recent user talk page edits, less than 50 in the last 9 months. A good sysop must have strong history of talk page edits and the ability to engage in discussion while remaining civil. With so few talk page edits (and Wikipedia namespace edits, where you discuss with other users), it makes it very difficult to gauge your ability to interact with other users, something that you will no doubt encounter as a sysop. You state you wish to work in XfD, AIV, RFPP, yet I see you have little to no experience in any of these areas. Take your XfD contributions for instance. You have made no edits in this area since early July 2009. If you wish to work in this area, I would suggest you vote in these discussions more often or perhaps make several non-admin closures. Your contributions to Wikipedia contentwise have been very strong and I encourage you to keep it up. But if you want the mop and bucket, I'd recommend getting more involved in the management-related areas of the project. Perhaps in a few months and more experience. -FASTILY_sock ^(TALK) 04:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
2. Oppose. (i) 9k+ edits over 3 years with rather irregular counts. About 100+ edits per month recently, a few edits per month on user talk pages. Low activity is a big minus for a newcoming admin. (ii) Most of those 9k+ edits are on articles and policies, but, there is no visibly strong writing contributions (DYK/FA/GA, most of the regular edits are minor by my measures). As to policies, Wikipedia:Notability (local interests) is not a brilliant example, judging from its talk page alone. (iii) Self-nomination, in this case, is also not a plus. I have no hard feelings, and do appreciate the candidate's work, but just require more from an admin. Materialscientist (talk) 06:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
3. Oppose not feeling comfortable with candidate's CSD work per GB, along with lack of personal interaction with editors. ArcAngel (talk) 07:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
4. Oppose editor does not have enough experience where it counts to be an admin RP459 (talk) 20:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

   Could you be more specific? As someone who's on the fence somewhat I'm curious to see what you mean. -- Atama頭 21:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

5. While Sebwite claims to understand that an administrator is merely responsible for implementing the consensus decision at AfDs, his answers to questions 6 and 11 indicate that he is approaching AfD from the standpoint of a voter and not a closer. I am afraid that Sewbite will close AfDs based on his personal opinion of the article rather than based on the discussion. NW (Talk) 00:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
6. "If my personal opinion were to delete, which will inevitably happen in some cases, I would go ahead and delete the article" - Very seldom is the personal opinion of the closing admin relevant to the result of an AfD. This is a fairly basic matter of policy, so unfortunately I think you need a bit more experience in terms of deletion policies. I think you do great work here however, and I'd be happy to support or even nominate you in a couple months. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
7. Oppose - per Juliancolton. Policy is incredibly important when it comes to deletion and adminship, and knowing but still contradicting (per the opposition between questions 6 and 10) the basic idea that the admin is the judge and the !voters are the jury leaves me rather uneasy with the candidate. As per others, the nominee would certainly be an excellent candidate once they gain more knowledge of policy, but I'd rather not see an admin just beginning to be comfortable with deletion policies. --tennisman 01:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
8. Oppose One of the most important parts of being an admin is being impartial. As such your answer to 11 alone is enough to for me to oppose. Admins who act in this way compromise the integrity of this site. Triplestop x3 01:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
9. Oppose due to the answer to question 11. I know this user has lots of experience, but the answer to question 11 makes me oppose. December21st2012Freak ^{Lord of the Vulcans} 01:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
10. Oppose - Rather than my previous weak support, this is a firm opposition. The answers given since my support are disturbing. Answer 8 is frankly ridiculous, saying "I feel that Wikipedia is not the appropriate place to discuss my personal political views" when his user page is filled with userboxes saying to impeach politicians, who he supported in the last US presidential election, and what political party he is affiliated with. I honestly don't mind if a person gives their political beliefs on their user page but to do so and at the same time to say that they oppose presenting their political views looks like dishonesty and I have trouble trusting someone with such contradictions. I'll assume good faith with answer 9, that Sebwite means he might not disclose alternate accounts to bureaucrats because he would do so on the user pages of his accounts (though someone could interpret his answer to mean that he's not sure he'd disclose them in any manner). Answer 10 claims that administrators should always give a reason for declaring Keep or Delete on an AfD, and uses an essay that talks about voting as justification (even though an admin closing an AfD shouldn't be considering his close as a vote). Answer 11 just seems like the wrong answer, the correct answer should be that the decision is based on which side had the best appeal to policy, and ignore your own personal opinion. I don't have confidence that Sebwite could be trusted to properly close AfD discussions, and that is his first (and I assume primary) reason to request the tools. -- Atama頭 01:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
11. Oppose (triple edit-conflicted) This has absolutely nothing to do with the pace or volume of contribution history. If anything, I see a slow, steady history of contribution to be an indicator of long-term investment in the project and trust. That said, the point brought up by those above is valid and a deal-breaker for me. If you have strong feelings on an XfD's subject, you probably shouldn't be closing the discussion in the first place—let alone casting a tiebreaking !vote. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

    I have no problem with recent activity levels, but the answer to question 11 was unfortunate. Dekimasuよ! 02:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC) Not so much because I've changed my mind, but because I find it unfortunate that a couple dozen more people than necessary have left the same negative feedback. When the outcome is clear and everyone is citing the same response, I think it's rather discourteous to pile on. Dekimasuよ! 12:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

12. Answers to Q6 and Q11 show that the candidate needs more experience and understanding on the AFD process. I have to agree with NW up there. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 02:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
13. Oppose also per the answers to Q6 (which basically dances around the question) and Q11 (sounds too dangerously indicative of a "supervote" as opposed to a "determination of consensus"). Q9 also worries me for some reason. MuZemike 02:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
14. Oppose Sorry Sebwite but your answer to question 11 scares me a little. I trust you witht the tools however I think that you need to learn more about the AFD process. Personal opinions cannot affect your choice to delete an article or not. It needs to based off of a WP:CONSENSUS. I belive that in a few months time these issues will be sorted out and you will be ready agian. Good luck in any future RFA.--Coldplay Expert 02:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
15. Oppose based solely on answers to questions. I don't believe I have ever interacted with Sebwite. I was very favorably impressed by the candidate's answer to Q4, but the answers to Q6, Q7, Q9, and Q11 were disappointing. Taken together, those answers led me to conclude that this user has not fully absorbed Wikipedia policies and does not have a good grasp on the appropriate role of an administrator in closing XfDs. --Orlady (talk) 02:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
16. Oppose - Answers to Q6 and Q11 show a disturbing lack of knowledge in this area. I can't support at this time, as I feel that Sebwite would not use the tools correctly. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 03:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
17. When an AfD is evenly split between keep and delete, generally the result is no consensus which results in keeping the article - there has to be a clear consensus for deletion (besides anything that falls under CSD, or in some special instances, BLP issues). But it also means that you have to look extra close to the arguments both sides give for keeping or deleting, looking at the arguments on both ends (specifically to see if they back it up with policy and common sense) and decide from there. I'm sorry your RfA has to go down like this, but don't lose faith, apply in a few months with a stronger understanding of Wikipedia's policies — you'll be fine. Master&Expert (Talk) 03:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
18. Oppose per 11. Giving this candidate the tools at this stage would ultimately not be in his interests. I can see him coming to grief. Best he waits a few months and tries again. Crafty (talk) 03:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
19. Now Strong Oppose per initial answer to q15, which shows that the candidate just doesn't "get" the concerns expressed by most of the recent oppose !votes. And revised answer to q6, holding that no consensus BLPs default to delete, isn't policy, and remains a hotly contested proposal at best. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC) Oppose per Q11 and implications in answers to some other questions conflicting with the ideal that the admin's role is primarily to implement community consensus (or lack thereof), a principle that goes well beyond XFD closings. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
20. Strong Oppose Frankly, the answer to question 11 scares me... Personal opinions have no bearing on an admin's decision on whether to delete an article. It must be based on consensus. Until It Sleeps ^{Talk • Contribs} 05:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
21. Oppose per answers to questions six and eleven.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
22. Oppose Answer to Question 11 is incorrect. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 07:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
23. Oppose Sorry but your answer to question 11 confirms my concerns from question 6, the reasons for this have been well covered by others above. A carefull read of the Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators before coming back again with more experience of this area will hopefully allow you to be successful in the future. Davewild (talk) 07:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
24. Oppose I don't trust this user with the tools based on the boxen and the comments about overzealous deletion on his userpage. Hipocrite (talk) 12:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
25. Weak Oppose Although this contributor is active enough to be an administrator, he should reconsider his lack of participation on talk pages, and tend to be more on project pages and articles. Still, he makes a fine admin to me. However, the lack of participation on talk pages prevents me from a support.----_{Boeing7107isdelicious|Sprich mit meine Piloten} 12:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
26. Per poor answers to questions and especially for, "If my personal opinion were to delete, which will inevitably happen in some cases, I would go ahead and delete the article". Please wait a few months. Pmlineditor ∞ 12:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
27. Per most above. Answers demonstrate the editor is not familiar with policy and norms. When closing an AFD, your job is to decide consensus, not cast a "tie-breaking" vote then following through on that vote unilaterally. If an AFD discussion is really split 50/50 not just in number of "votes" but in strength of argument, the default is keep whether you personally think it should be deleted or not. If the number is split 50/50 in number but one side is much stronger in policy than the other, the closing admin should close in favor of that side. Sorry, but you don't yet know what to do as an administrator so should get more experience in these areas and try again in 6 months or so. The Seeker 4 Talk 13:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
28. Oppose As per the concerns raised by NW and Atama. Warrah (talk) 14:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
29. Oppose - sorry, not yet. I have concerns about your level of activity - that in itself isn't reason to oppose, but combined with your answers it suggests that you aren't sufficiently well-informed about our current policies and practices. (For example, the answer to Q11 is wrong.) If you can get more experience with 'admin areas' like AfD, I will be happy to support in future. Robofish (talk) 15:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
30. Oppose Q15, the closing administrator should not be imposing their opinion on the AFD. If an administrator assessing the consensus determines there is no consensus, that administrator should take off their administrator hat and !vote their opinion, relist or close as no conssensus. Closing it per their opinion is not what their job is. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 18:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
31. Oppose Agree with concerns raised about injecting personal opinion in AfD closure, and lack of engaging in talk page interactions. Cirt (talk) 19:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
32. Oppose (moved from neutral) - The answers to questions are giving me too many concerns to support at this time. If issues can be resolved in the future, a support vote could be likely. Sorry. Best, Cocytus [»talk«] 19:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
33. Oppose per the lack of understanding on why you don't use personal opinion to close an AFD. In those circumstances, you close the discussion as "No Consensus" and keep the article. Showing any opinion in this closing openly will get you recalled and you will lose the tools. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
34. Oppose (from support) Per Q11, you're supposed to evaluate the discussion not offer up your opinion. If you wish to do so, make a !vote to keep or delete and don't close it.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 23:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
35. Oppose per answers to latter questions. JPG-GR (talk) 02:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
36. Oppose per Q11. Townlake (talk) 04:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
37. Oppose per above.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.Snoppy (talk • contribs) 00:36, 7 November 2009

    — Mr.Snoppy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 14:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

38. (edit conflict) Oppose - Q6 and Q11, mainly. I like the "blatantly not encyclopedic" CSD idea though. Anyways. Your opinion is not to get in the way with the discussion. I'm kind of saddened to see this one fail over a textbook case of what not to do.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 05:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
39. Oppose over anything related to "opinion". As someone who deals with basically everything AfD-- nominating, author contact, article improvements, withdrawing, discussion, topic research-- I am nauseated at the thought of an admin sitting and staring at what I may have spent several hours in total just "because". Admins are not referees. Mops cannot clear a room of people and throw their own victory celebration. Mind you, I know this probably happens more than it should, but it should be exceedingly rare and sometimes a really tough/controversial result is given. If I ever end up an administrator, I know I'll be able to see what people are trying their best to make a case for an article, and it worries me about how much I'm brushed off for a decisive close versus "no consensus". ♪ daTheisen(talk) 13:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
40. Oppose unfortunately. Sebwite has been a great content contributor and put forth a very worth idea in their remarks about CSD above. But Sebwite stated that closing deletion discussions would be one of the administrative activities they would participate in, and their answer to Q11 therefore cannot be ignored. Administrators should not close deletion discussions they've participated in, and they should close deletion discussions by evaluating consensus (or the lack thereof), not by casting a deciding vote. Actually, your answer to Q11 really contradicts your commendable answer to Q10...strange. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 15:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
41. Oppose Per question 11. Sorry. America69 (talk) 18:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
42. Oppose I know by now that you have learned from question 11... I feel bad that you have lost this RfA based on one answer, but being a neutral voice of reason is essential to being an admin. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 03:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
43. Oppose with regret, per question 11. If an admin looks at the AfD with an eye to closure, they need to be neutral, and look purely at the comments left, and judge the concensus from that. Obviously, admins will have strong opinions on the deletion or keeping of some articles, and if this was one of those sitations, it is the role of the admin to make the appropriate !vote at AfD - and the leave the closure to another admin. I am also concerned that the candidate did not answer the follow-up to Question 9 - explaining under which circumstances the candidate would not disclose alternate accounts to bureaucrats. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 13:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

    With the exceptions I noted, I feel that this candidate has the potential to be a good admin - use this RfA as a learning opportunity, to understand in more detail what is expected of an admin from the community. I wish the candidate good luck for his next RfA -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 22:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

44. Oppose per now-stricken answer to Q11. I can understand that you've now learned from that, but knowing there may be numerous other things you have similarly mistaken views on, I can't bring myself to support. Sorry, and good luck - I'm sure you'll get the mop someday. [Belinrahs|^talktome⁄ _ididit] 05:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
45. Oppose with recognition of the candidate's overall good intentions. There are just too many things in their answers to the questions that make me uncomfortable, at this time. --Strikerforce (talk) 08:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
46. Oppose. Good intention, but just too many problems with his editing and his poor answers, particularly to Q11. Sorry, but good luck! Laurinavicius (talk) 19:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
47. Opposer per answer to question 11. If you feel the need to override consensus and delete, don't' delete, but state your case on the page, and let a more impartial admin handle it.--Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
48. Deletion tends to generate a lot of tendentiousness in the encyclopedia, so it's important that admins get it right first time whenever possible. Stifle (talk) 11:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
49. Oppose Per Q9. "Depends on the situation" A8UDI 12:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
50. Oppose per question 11. Discussion has been held and there was not agreement that BLP deletion discussions not ending in consensus can default to delete in the absence of a subject request. Even if a subject request is made, it's only a possibility, it's still left to the closing admin's discretion. The last misunderstanding of that caused enough trouble. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
51. Oppose - (RfA Criteria) You don't show admin knowledge answering the questions. I can't feel comfortable handing you the broom. Sorry! Smithers (Talk) 01:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
52. Reluctant oppose, but I do hope the user takes the suggestions given here and runs again in a few months after which I will gladly support. -- œ^™ 02:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral Sebwite needs to study up on the CSD reasons, most of what I saw in the deleted contribs was not accurate. db-author was used correctly a few time though. I saw nothing nomnated for AfD, is there anything at all? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

   Well, Sebwite created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baltimore bus beating back in January 2008. However, he said in his statement that he prefers to try to improve articles rather than nominate them for deletion. As for the CSD issues - could you provide a summary of the deleted contribs for the benefit of us non-admins? Robofish (talk) 16:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

2. In March-June 2009 Sebwite authored and defended Wikipedia:Notability (local interests) which, in my opinion, demonstrated (past tense) Sebwite's misunderstanding of policies and top-level guidelines on the subject, severe US-centric approach to worldwide topics ... and other unacceptable flaws exposed on the talk page. See also Wikipedia:Notability (buildings, structures, and landmarks) and Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill, also from Sebwite. I'd recommend Sebwite to explain their current take on the subject. P.S. I de-facto retired from wikipedia, so this entry needs not be included in the vote count. NVO (talk) 05:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

   Neutral the lack of edits to talk pages troubles me. On the other hand this user has had a good history (No blocks ect.) and has written several good essays.--Coldplay Expert 22:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC) Changed my !vote to oppose.--Coldplay Expert 02:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

   Neutral per 6 and 11. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

   Moving to oppose since you don't understand the policies

3. Neutral: good editor but needs some more experience.. South Bay (talk) 04:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

   Neutral. As for question 6, I would delete if there is any suggestion the subject of the article has requested deletion. In fact I think the default for biographical articles should be to delete if no consensus, but I do not think that is the policy unless it has changed recently. Bwrs (talk) 05:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC) Moving to moral support. I think that now he understands the policies.

4. Moral Support, but Neutral Sorry, I don't think you are quite ready. I would suggest a closer per WP:SNOW--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 11:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
5. Hmm, questions 6 and 11 give me a few shivers, as I just wouldn't trust sebwhite with the delete button. Going with neutral to avoid pile on. Come back in a couple of months and I'll be happy to support. Agree with Gordon here, suggest a snow closure. AtheWeatherman 14:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
6. Neutral. Can't support at this time, but I won't oppose this editor, either. Keep working on XFD and your knowledge of policy, and I'll be happy to support your next RFA. Best, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

   Neutral - Sorry, was going to support, but question 11 pushed me to neutral. Pretty strong candidacy overall though. Cocytus [»talk«] 15:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC) Moving to oppose. Cocytus [»talk«] 19:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

7. Neutral per a couple of the question answers, particularly 13. Doc Quintana (talk) 17:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

   Question - what's wrong with Q13? It looks fine to me. Cool-down blocks are a no-no, but if an angry editor is being disruptive, block for being disruptive. That's the policy.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 05:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

   Blocking for disruption if fine, but hot tempers shouldn't be a factor in blocking at all: sometimes people do get angry. If Sebwite can remove the part about anger in the second portion of the answer, I'll rescind my concern with Q 13. I know it's a small point to be hung up on, but I think Wikipedians should always try to accept the fact that others will get angry at times and take it as a sign of passion for the project at first glance. Doc Quintana (talk) 11:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

   I read the answer as meaning "if an editor is being angry and disruptive you can block them for the latter, even though you shouldn't block them for the former"; in order words I don't think Sebwie was saying temper should be a factor. Olaf Davis (talk) 12:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

   Exactly. If an angry editor is being disruptive, he's still being disruptive regardless of whether or not he comes across as angry. Unfortunately, this one's not going to pass anyway per Q11...--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 19:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

   If that was the intent, then please ignore my particular concern with 13. There were plenty of concerns all around, but that stuck out for me, I can't explain why. Doc Quintana (talk) 00:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

8. Keen and thoughtful, but seems to have got distracted from editing into essay writing, which means Sebwite is thinking more about their views on what Wikipedia should be than how to work collaboratively with other editors, which is central to adminship. Needs to think more about closing deletion discussions, but I applaud the expressed willingness to explain decisions. Fences&Windows 19:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
9. Torn - I'd really love to support this editor, for his contributions, essays, etc., but he really needs more editing experience and communication in the community (read: more talk page experience, Rollback rights, etc.). Bearian (talk) 22:43, 9 November 2009 (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.