Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Stevietheman

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Stevietheman

[edit]

Final (27/14/3) ended 14:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Stevietheman (talk · contribs) – I've been editting extensively alongside Stevie for about a year now, and it's left me with an extremely good impression of him. He has made a whole lot of edits (I don't know of any working edit counters, but I'm sure a count will be posted here shortly) - easilly over 10,000 edits total - and he has participated in discussions about process and policy for some time, I don't think his knowledge about the kind of stuff he'd deal with as an admin can be questioned.

I'm not sure what he considers his biggest contribution to be, but I think one of them has to be Wikipedia:WikiProject Louisville. He singlehandedly founded and still helms the project, which has at least 20 members and is an example of an effective WikiProject with no needless overhead... it's only ever been used to coordinate the improvement of articles, which is pretty cool and I think that speaks to his level-headedness as an editor.

Stevie lists a lot of his article contributions on his user page, and it's pretty clear this is a guy who's made a huge contribution to Wikipedia, both in original content and painstaking cleanup and other maintenence work (often of my own hasty work!) The reason he's been around so long and has so many edits yet has never run for adminship is that, apparently, until about a month ago he wasn't interested and didn't want to be nominated, but now he's indicated that he's changed his mind.

Stevie has the admirable habit of talking to new users, and in addition to welcoming them, he often personally explains issues about their edits to them [1], [2], and goes out of his way to encourage promising newcomers [3], [4].

I have editted with him on topics related to regional history, and I'm aware that he edits politics articles and has had some conflicts. However, I can say that he has seemed utterly uninterested in pushing a POV in every encounter I've had with him. He was blocked for 3RR, but in February 2005, and has an unblemished record since then (I think we can agree that 18 months is very much ancient history - most of us haven't even been editors for that long). I've seen him involved in a few disputes, but he always chooses to discuss rather than revert, and seems to have a clear grasp of policy and act respectfully. I know it will probably be pointed out that he's been "in the wrong" on a few debates [5], but I remind everyone that we don't have to agree 100% with everything a candidate's said to support them at RfA, what's more important is that they've conducted themselves respectfully and maturely in disputes, and have worked towards a solution rather than just getting their own way or else. I think it's clear that Stevie has done that. --W.marsh 01:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly accept this nomination. I respectfully withdraw from this nomination. I was gratified to be nominated to take on these additional responsibilities, but it has become clear that becoming an admin (even just the process) is distracting away from important project work I've been involved in. I thank everyone (and I do mean everyone) who has participated. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 16:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A:
I would like to help out most with processing both proposed and speedy deletions. I feel that the "uncontroversially bad" articles clutter and counteract the utility and power of this incredible reference work. I will also occasionally help out with xfd's, although in cases where the consensus isn't clear, I will have to do a good deal of additional research and consulting with other admins to clarify how to handle them. I want to make decisions that are fair for the Wikipedia and are in tune with growing its utility as a civic knowledgebase of well-sourced notable subjects. I also feel strongly about the cleanliness/coherence of the category system, and I will pay special attention to chores that maintain that cleanliness/coherence. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 16:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Other areas I will tend to work on are page protections (article stability is key to Wikipedia's utility) and occasionally working on the most severe backlogs of any admin task. I admit that I haven't sought out a lot of admin-like tasks before, such as identifying vandals or submitting many articles for deletion, but I have tended in life to be more of a creator or organizer, and that's where I have concentrated much of my efforts heretofore. If I have (for example) identified an article for deletion, it normally had occurred out of serendipity. But, as I said, I am very interested in starting to help process prods and speedy deletes. Note: I pledge to never use admin tools on articles or entities where I hold a specially large bias, and especially in areas where I am a party to a disagreement. In these cases, I will instead seek to bring in another admin. I am a strong adherent to avoiding conflicts of interest. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 16:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also want to be admin that is a special aid to the WikiProjects (especially the geographically based projects), which I find to be a large part of the future of Wikipedia development as they will be key to the Wikipedia ultimately fully covering all subject areas. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 16:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Last, as someone who understands CSS quite a bit, I could probably help out with style issues. I may eventually even dabble more into the inner technical workings of the Wikipedia, time permitting. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 16:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A:
Like W.marsh stated, I am pleased about WikiProject Louisville's progress, but not as much as about what I've done to organize it, but far more about the creative work that has been done (especially by others) due to the identification of what needs to be done. I've been amazed at the increased focus and teamwork that such a project has engendered. I highly recommend that all cities and regions of the world organize such projects. Further, I have been contributing increasing amounts of time to WikiProject Kentucky, as Kentucky's subjects have not been getting their due. This is a part of the United States with such rich history and places to visit--I just got to a point where I just had to act to organize and build up this content. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 16:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As far as articles are concerned, I am especially proud of the first article I created, E-democracy. It's not an extensive article, for sure, but I suppose the first article one creates is one that tends to be cherished a lot. I also am ecstatic about how Louisville, Kentucky (a featured article) has developed, and I am happy to have been a significant player in its development. Otherwise, I am generally pleased with all the contributions I've been able to make with respect to my home region and politics, with a little bit of computer science and entertainment subjects thrown in. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 16:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A:
Absolutely, Oprah! (MADtv reference) Well, indeed, I have been a party in several disagreements, although the number of them over my 2 1/2 years as a contributor I could count on one and a half hands. I am not perfect. I have on occasion used words perhaps stronger than I should have used. I have not assumed good faith 100% of the time. However, I have also tried to learn from any mistakes I have made. I have, in most of these moments, avoided personal attacks, although I have encountered a few individuals who have read my comments as attacks when I perceived what I said to be more of a description of their behavior. I have indeed felt stress at particular moments, but in reality, those moments have been few and far between and only related to a narrow set of subjects. With most work I do in the Wikipedia, I am passionate only about the accomplishment and the positive teamwork, while dispassionate in most discussions and disagreements. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 16:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the future, I will continue to strive to be dispassionate in disagreements and consult with others to resolve disagreements, something I have been increasingly doing anyway. Again, if I have a strong bias or am a party to a disagreement, I will ask another admin to utilize any admin tools, if necessary and only if they independently come to that conclusion. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 16:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Last 5000 edits.Voice-of-All 01:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

Viewing contribution data for user Stevietheman (over the 5000 edit(s) shown on this page) (FAQ)
Time range: 115 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 0hr (UTC) -- 18, Aug, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 5hr (UTC) -- 24, April, 2006
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 100% Minor edits: 100%
Average edits per day: 172.52 (for last 1000 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 334 edits): Major article edits: 100% Minor article edits: 100%
Analysis of edits (out of all 5000 edits shown on this page and last 20 image uploads):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/major rewrites/sourcing): 0.2% (10)
Significant article edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 3.92% (196)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 37.96% (1898)
Unique image uploads (non-deleted/reverts/updates): 14 (checks last 5000)
Superficial article edits marked as minor: 6.79%
Special edit type statistics:
All edits to deletion pages: 1.44% (72 edit(s))
Marked XfD/DRV votes: 0.16% (8 edit(s))
Article deletion tagging: 0.08% (4 edit(s))
Edits to "copyright problems" pages: 0.02% (1 edit(s))
Page (un)protections: 0% (0 edit(s))
Edits to RfAs: 0.22% (11 edit(s))
Marked RfA votes: 0.06% (0 support vote(s)) || (3 oppose vote(s))
Page moves: 0.96% (48 edit(s)) (25 moves(s))
Page redirections: 1.34% (67 edit(s))
User talk warnings: 0.02% (1 edit(s))
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 2137 | Average edits per page: 2.34 | Edits on top: 29.02%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 80.34% (4017 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 3.96% (198 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 6.64% (332 edit(s))
Unmarked edits with no summary: 6.86% (343 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 48.5% (2425) | Article talk: 24.86% (1243)
User: 4.66% (233) | User talk: 4.28% (214)
Wikipedia: 10.88% (544) | Wikipedia talk: 1.38% (69)
Image: 0.32% (16)
Template: 1.8% (90)
Category: 1.98% (99)
Portal: 0.26% (13)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 1.08% (54)
  • See Stevietheman's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
  • Total edits 14888
  • Main: 9992
  • Talk: 1956
  • User: 768
  • User talk: 448
  • Wikipedia: 1079
  • Wikipedia talk: 129
  • Image: 27
  • Image talk: 1
  • Mediawiki: 0
  • Mediawiki talk: 1
  • Template: 146
  • Template talk: 137
  • Help: 0
  • Help talk: 0
  • Category: 177
  • Category talk: 5
  • Portal: 13
  • Portal talk: 9


Support
  1. Support - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support traditional nominator support. --W.marsh 17:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support I believe Stevietheman would make a fine admin. I have seen him in discussions and he keeps good character under strong fire. An impressive edit count also. JungleCat talk/contrib 17:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support, strong support. Very experience, needs the tools.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 17:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support --Kchase T 17:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - I don't know him but I like his attitude and he has the experience to do a good job. Deb 17:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support --Aude (talk contribs) 17:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support A superb editor. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Kbdank71 17:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Maurreen 18:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. I think he held his own on Durin's diffs below. Nothing I wouldnt have said. SynergeticMaggot 18:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Strong Support per SynergeticMaggot. Rama's arrow 18:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. Durin's diffs don't trouble me at all. Themindset 18:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support per nom. CFIF (talk to me) 19:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support no problems here. Wikipediarules2221 20:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Should make a great admin. Dryman 21:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. I'm surprised it's taken this long to get him on here. — GT 22:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support --Bedford 22:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Strong Support Will be a good admin. Has made great contributions to the project over a long period of time. Is helpful to other editors, especially newbies. He understands wiki policies and isn't afraid to stand up for what he believes in. Also, he isn't stubborn and will respond well to logical arguements. --rogerd 00:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support per SynergeticMaggot and nom. --james(talk) 02:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support per above. —Khoikhoi 03:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Durin makes some valid points, but so does this nominee and I would have to agree that while copyright issues are paramount, the rules do need to be applied evenly...no one is at fault in that situation overall. I would also like to state that this scrolling past a mountain of questions to place a vote is a real pain...what happened to the old system?--MONGO 04:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support - I like his additude. -- Selmo 05:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Kusma (討論) 08:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support I see no problem --Musaabdulrashid 10:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support the reasons under oppose shows that the user does have limits, so? Everyone has limits. The difs seem very trivial to me and don't show any major problem.--Andeh 12:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support per well-written nom and candidate answers. The situation with the fair use violations is a little misguided, but a non-issue as far as I'm concerned. --Aguerriero (talk) 14:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose Overly combative regarding policy issues. Accused me of selective enforcement of fair use violations and singling out project Louisville [6]. Made demands that since I had removed fair use images from project Louisville templates that I must also remove them from every other city project as soon as possible [7][8]. When I suggested he conduct removals of fair use violations on other city projects, he refused indicating that he did not want to be the bringer of bad tidings while accusing me of being unfair and haphazard [9]. When informed in advance of a fair use violation on his userpage per his request to be informed, he described it as "this is getting insane" [10]. I believe this user needs to develop a more patient approach to questions of policy, and show considerably more restraint in making accusations against people he is in conflict with. Such behaviors inflame situations rather than calm them. I do not feel this user will be ready to be an admin until such time as they learn these behaviors. --Durin 17:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your comments. I fully appreciate and accept the fair use policy that you were enforcing. It was the apparently uneven approach to enforcing it that I questioned, and I think that this is clear from our conversations on this matter. I invite everyone to read those convsersations. I was most concerned about the appearance of the project being singled out. As an admin (if selected), I will apply rules the same way Andy Taylor of Mayberry applied them, with even application and sensitivity to affected communities. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 18:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe it's just me, but that didn't seem to be combative at all. Do you have any other diffs, or was your oppose based upon these two incidents alone? --Kbdank71 18:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's a single incident and the diffs I provided are appropriate to it. The attitude I found most troubling is, essentially, being fair is more important then respecting copyright. That is a completely unworkable approach. That, combined with unfounded accusations against me is the basis of my oppose. --Durin 18:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand your position, but if I may present a refinement of my position, if it wasn't clear before: I don't find that being fair is mutually exclusive to respecting copyright. Timely enforcement is not necessarily significantly curtailed from considering the effects of some of that enforcement. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 18:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Fairness is just as important as removing copyvios. -From your first diff. And from the others, he isn't saying he disagrees with anything you've said: I agree that we cannot violate copyrights. Again, I'm not seeing combative, I'm not seeing disregard for policy. I see no reason to change my support. --Kbdank71 18:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weak oppose. Looking over Stevie's contributions, I noticed several not-so-pleasing things. First of all, I'd like to know if he can explain this comment found on his talk page, made to someone he was in a disagreement with: I will continue discussing this subject once mediation has begun. As for now, it's taking up too much of my valuable time. I think that was harsh and shows that he is not willing to sacrifice his "valuable time" to Wiki. At the very least, this response was not a good way to deal with the conflict. Additionally, I am concerned that W.marsh had to tell Stevie what adminship entails no more than 16 hours ago (see User talk:Stevietheman#rfa). My last reason for opposing is that I do not see a sufficient level of activity on the candidate's part in XfDs. This makes me wonder if he is sufficiently familiar with policy. Most of his Wikipedia namespace edits are to his WikiProject, which is fine - and I'm certainly glad that he was so bold - but I really would like to see more XfD involvement to prove the candidate's knowledge of policy. If my concerns are addressed over the next month or so, I will be quite open to supporting the candidate in the future. If my concerns are addressed appropriately and sufficiently, I may even be convinced to swing to a neutral or weak support. Srose (talk) 18:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I totally understand your concern about that particular comment, but believe me, that came after a lot of discussion on the matter that seemed to keep reaching a kind of impasse. I had contributed a lot of what I do feel is my valuable time on that matter up to that point. And ultimately, I did spend a lot of my Wikipedia time on that matter. See Talk:Democracy (disambiguation) for details. Re: W.marsh telling me what adminship entails, I can say I already had general notions and knowledge about what it entailed, but W.marsh kindly offered his opinion on what I should look at to enrich my knowledge. Re: AfD's, I realize my contributions on that haven't been plentiful, but I have indeed contributed to a (positive integer) number of them, and also have submitted articles for proposed deletion. Also consider that I am not a deletionist--I don't think in terms of actively seeking out things to delete--that's just my nature. Thanks for your remark. I really appreciate them. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 18:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that was a comprehensive and speedy response if I've ever seen one! I'm going to continue my search for your AfDs and see if your comments in them will change me to a support, because I've begun to lean neutral. Your AfD participation may push me over the top to weak support. Thank you for your explanation! Srose (talk) 18:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't read the actual comments, but I found a good number of contributions to AFD discussions here. --Kbdank71 18:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm extremely sorry, but I'm afraid I'll stay with my very weak oppose. I just don't see many contributions on your part that are convincng enough in my mind that you've dabbled enough in admin-like tasks. In your past four hundred edits (yes, I went through by hand), you have not reverted any vandalism, warned any users, participated in any XfDs...you did, however, put up one prod. This doesn't demonstrate a need for the tools; your major areas of contribution can all be contributed to by any user with an account - you don't need the admin tools. You are a wonderful editor, don't get me wrong, but I don't see any demonstration of sufficient experience in admin aspects of the project. For example, one of the biggest jobs of an administrator is to block vandals and dole out warnings, and I don't see very much of that at all. One can be a very valuable editor without being an admin, and I think that's your situation. I don't think you would abuse the tools, but I wonder what frequency you would use them with, seeing that you are very dedicated to your Project. Admins typically are expected to work in deletions, blocks, intervention, mediation and vandal-reverting more than in the actual writing of articles and formation of Projects. I just don't see any real need for you to have the mop right now; you're doing fine where you are, and admins are not a higher class of users; adminship is not a reward. After you've dabbled in admin tasks more extensively and regularly (XfD, reverting vandalism, even just mediating in WP:3O or WP:RfC), I will gladly support you. Srose (talk) 18:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong Oppose. Durin's diffs indicate that Stevie has a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy and how it is enforced. Well-founded reasonable policies (like our policy on fair use) should be enforced, and any enforcement is appropriate. However, we are all volunteers here, so any particular person's actions may be "selective." For example, I may revert one piece of vandalism and not another, depending on how much time I have when I see the vandalism, and I can assume that someone else will cover the hole I left. There's no reason things should work differently for fair use policy. Stalking or singling out particular users or wikiprojects is certainly bad, but I'm not aware of any evidence During was doing that. To say that appearing fair is of equal importance to enforcing policy is completely wrong, except when dealing with new users; experienced users have no reason to violate policy, and no reason to complain if someone chooses to point it out. Am I missing something here? If so, I'm happy to discuss. -- SCZenz 20:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your comments. My intent about fairness was narrow in scope. I just felt that if someone was going to target a city WikiProject for such images, then why not spend a few minutes and look at the other city/regional WikiProjects. I was asking for some consideration, and I had felt the admin's response was insensitive. I have no issue whatsoever with enforcement of Wikipedia policy. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 20:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose; per Durin and SCZenz. --HResearcher 00:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Weak Oppose per Durin.Voice-of-All 02:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose, per Durin. Responses in that dispute demonstrate a lack of understanding of the wiki process; responses above suggest that he still feels that Durin acted unfairly in some way, which is untrue. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose Per above and Fails my criteria. --Masssiveego 05:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Weak oppose per Durin and Srose. RandyWang (chat me up/fix me up) 08:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. No, no, no, just no. Durin's diffs speak for themselves. Kimchi.sg 09:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose, per Durin and Srose -- Samir धर्म 10:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose. I share SCZenz and Christopher Parham's view on Stevie's interaction with Durin. The best response to Durin's notification would have been to have volunteer to help him notify the other wikiprojects; an acceptable response would have been to merely thank him for the education; Stevie's response shows a lack of perspective about the volunteer nature of the project. Notwithstanding, Stevie is a good contributor and generally communicates kindly and effectively with other editors, and may make a good administrator down the road. ×Meegs 11:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. The diffs cited by Durin are just too recent (about two weeks ago). Wikipedia is not required to be consistent, even or "fair" in its application of policy. Aren't I Obscure?
  13. Oppose per Durin. Mackensen (talk) 14:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose per SCZenz's interpretation of Durin. I am concerned how he would handle complaints brought to ANI and AN3 given his feelings about fairness and selective enforcement. Thatcher131 (talk) 14:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Neutral
  1. Neutral, Durin's diffs of very recent policy issues and further accusations do not give a positive image. Otherwise user looks OK. feydey 18:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral for this comment; "Further, I refuse to be the bringer of bad tidings to other WikiProjects." ([11]), per Durin above. Looks like a very strong candidate but admins sometimes have to make decisions in divisive circumstances, which means that one party of a discussion at least will perceive them as bearing bad tidings. An admin won't get very far if they try to please everybody with every decision.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  04:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, and I totally agree with your position. I had felt in this particular case that it was a special circumstance, that as a de-facto prominent contributor to WikiProject Louisville, it would have created needless havoc for me to go through other similar WikiProjects and remove images with debateable fair use issues (using a city seal in a city WikiProject could be looked at as fair use by many). I have to return to my conflict of interest concerns. I am quite surprised that some (of good intentions, of course) have construed my narrow concerns about this one matter and extrapolated it to how I feel about the enforcement of Wikipedia policies. This was absolutely not my intent in that matter. I sincerely want to enforce the policies of Wikipedia without flinching, but I also want to avoid conflicts of interest, which I doubt would come up very frequently. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 06:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    When/if you get the mop, "special circumstances" will come by much, much more often than you think. Kimchi.sg 10:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral since, in view of the diffs adduced by Durin, et al., and in view of the less-than-satisfying question answers, although I am confident that the candidate would abuse the admin tools, I am not wholly sure that he would avolitionally misuse them (viz., by acting in an area with which he might be insufficiently conversant in view of his not being aware of such non-conversance, a problem from which many of us are not immune). Joe 06:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Stevietheman&oldid=1143864088"