Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SatyrTN

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

SatyrTN

Final: (71/4/3); ended 15:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

SatyrTN (talk · contribs) - This user has been around for a long time, since 21 July 2003, or four years, and four months, and has ammased over 24,000 non-deleted edits, and is a good participant all over Wikipedia, and he has over 9,400 mainspace edits, which is great for everyone. He works extremely hard for certain WikiProjects, like Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies, and WP:BOTREQ, helping out everywhere. He even runs a bot, SatyrBot, which shows that he is trusted in that respect. And check this out! Thats twelve of them, which is more than other admins have, something to be proud of. He is also extremely helpul, and would not turn away the opportunity to help a user. <DREAMAFTER>^<TALK> 00:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept this nomination. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: I've noticed that closing FLCs is taking almost a month lately, so I think that needs some attention. Recently I posted to WP:Page Protection that there were a significant number of pages that had been protected before expiration dates were possible, some have been left that way for a year, so RPP and un-RPP interest me. And of course AfD always seem to need help, though I may not run through that much.

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

A: I'm very proud of the five Featured Lists of LGBT people that I've shepherded through: Sa-Sc, Sd-Si, Sj-Sz, T-V, and W-Z. I've learned a lot about sourcing, BLP, even a little about copyvio issues. The reason I bring that up here is because the entire process was often more like plodding - being extremely thorough, working with other editors, cleaning up as you go along. That's the kind of editing I seem to be good at - give me a long backlog and I'll work my way through it.

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: Any editor that's been working on articles gets into conflicts, IMHO. And when the topic is seen as "controversial" by some, they're guaranteed. I've been working on LGBT issues and people for the past year+, so I've run in to some editors with strong viewpoints. I've found that the best way for me to react to stress and/or conflicts is to state my position clearly and concisely. If I get a response that continues to cause me stress, I walk away from the article and come back later. Usually reviewing the subject (most often biographies in these cases) and requesting third & fourth party opinions will help clarify to me and other editors. If that *still* doesn't work, I "back-burner" the subject, which means I'll continue to do research and watch the article, but unless I turn up anything new, I leave it alone.

The most stressful I've gotten in my wikitime was when an editor continued to harass me on my talk page about an article. I'm lucky enough to have several wikifriends that saw my stress levels rising and stepped in to calm me down and help me out.

Optional question from Epbr123

4. One of the userboxes on your userpage states that you hold an inclusionist philosophy. How do you think this will affect your judgement when closing AfD discussions? Epbr123 16:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A: My inclusionism (tempered by my Darwikinism, also on my user page) will probably affect AfD closures a little bit. I'm a bit opposed to nominations like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexuality in Star Trek, where the nom seems to have done so because the article needs work. In my opinion, that's what cleanup tags are for, not AfD. But I won't keep an article based on my opinions - consensus should determine an article's fate. SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from ChazBeckett

5. In this edit you referred to reverts in a content dispute as "reverting vandalism. Could you explain your reasoning? How do you define vandalism? Chaz ^Beckett 16:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A: Removing properly sourced information from a reliable source would seem to constitute vandalism (though I can think of instances when it would be appropriate). Vandalism is the addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia, per policy. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A: I'm revising my answer in response to the discussion below and to persistent misunderstandings, both on my part and on others'.

As per Wikipedia policy, vandalism is the addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.

A single recent event of my calling someone's edit to an article "vandalism" on my talk page was wrong, and for that I'm sorry. I made the comment to console a friend on my own talk page and did not intend to offend any of the editors involved.

Content disputes are best hashed out on the article's talk page and by consensus. My initial response was made specifically about the situation, not about policy. It was made without thoroughly investigating the situation, so I'm sorry for any incorrect statements. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 03:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

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

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

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

Discussion

Support

Support. SatyrTN was one of the first editors I interacted with on Wikipedia. He was extremely helpful and welcoming. Indeed his interactions with other users appear to me always to be friendly and courteous. His work on LGBT related articles involves him in a lot of BLP work and in ensuring that controversial information is well sourced. He has done great work in ensuring that articles in Category:LGBT people for example do contain reliable sourcing that confirms the subject belongs in that category. Satyr also contributes intelligently to AfD debates and follows the development of discussions, returning to comment further when appropriate. I belive he would make a good administrator. WjBscribe 15:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I know many wonderful editors here, but SatyrTN above all would make an excellent admin. He is helpful, reliable, and incredibly gifted at communicating. His contributions here have improved Wikipedia tremendously. I can support him without any reservations, and know he can be trusted to use the tools correctly. Thanks for taking this on, SatyrTN! Jeffpw 15:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nom, dang, I only got third, I must be loosing my touch... <DREAMAFTER> ^<TALK> 15:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. While I've never had any direct interaction with SatyrTN, I see his name very often. Each time, I had the impression that he was already an administrator based on how he conducted himself. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yeah, looks good to me. Good luck! GlassCobra 16:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. SatyrTN was the first person to welcome me to WP and to WProject LGBT Studies. He's been a guiding hand for me and has always been there to answer any questions I've had. While we have disagreed on a few things (mostly AfD opinions), he's always been gracious and has made me see the "other side" in different discussions. -- ALLSTARecho 16:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Epbr123 16:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Won't abuse the tools. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 16:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am not going to make the cliché addition about thinking this user was already an admin, but s/he certainly should be. A good editor, wide experience, long-term membership, no problem. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 16:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate a slightly shorter signature for both the nom (<tt><[[User:Dreamafter|DREAMAFTER]]><[[User talk:Dreamafter|TALK]]></tt>) and the candidate (-- [[User:SatyrTN|SatyrTN]] ([[User talk:SatyrTN|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/SatyrTN|contribs]])).^{[Coincidence?]} — But that's of course a very minor issue and everything else seems ok. I dorftrottel I talk I 16:34, December 2, 2007
Yeah, SatyrTN's sig could get shrunk a bit... I'm leaving him a message on his talk page with new code (since it's largely irrelevant for here). EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Oh yeah! :D Great user, _very_ involved with the project, he should have become an admin long ago. Brilliant work with the lists of LGBT people (huge knowledge of BLP issues and about hunting for valid sources), resulting in several featured lists. And he's a very nice, amiable fellow (we could use less wikidrama in our admins, methinks). And the tools would help him with all the maintenance he does around the wiki. No brainer folks, he'll make a very fine admin. ;) Raystorm (¿Sí?) 16:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Considering the stuff most admins do with their rollback buttons... RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 17:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OH MY FUCKING GOD YES YES YES Satyr is undoubtedly one of the most dedicated hard-working editors on Wikipedia. He has put his IT skills to work here, producing bots, scripts and programs right left and centre for the service of other Wikipedians, especially me, which I love him for (:D). He is unfailingly courteous, helpful and industrious - the gargantuan List of LGB people has been mostly compiled by him working every day for a year, and we have still only reached R. Satyr has always thoroughly read policies before quoting them or acting within their remits, and with his lengthy term on Wikipedia has a great deal of experience and insight to bring to the role of admin. This nom has not come soon enough. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. While I admire your enthusiasm, adminship is not a reward :). Dloh cierekim 18:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is. To make Satyr an admin would be a great reward for Wikipedia. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 02:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support tempered by a caution. While I agree, nom should be careful about the edit dispute vs vandalism call, does not state 3RR or AIV as choice areas. Appears ready for the tools in areas for which requested. Just be careful, please. Dloh cierekim 18:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I haven't seen anything to give me great caution. Experienced editor should do fine with the tools. Lara❤Love 19:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Satyr works extremely hard here at Wikipedia, is familiar with the policies and guidelines, works well with others in forming consensus and fixing problems that may crop up. I think he would be a fair arbiter as an admin. Aleta 19:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support excellent work here and seems familiar with Wikipedia. One incident of calling something vandalism that may not have been, seems to have learned from that mistake -- not that big of a deal. Shell ^babelfish 20:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Surprised support Cliche #1, I thought the user was one since I first arrived here. Never bothered to check the rights log because I just assumed... Keegan^talk 21:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 21:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)~~ boldly striking as this appears to be an imposter. Dloh cierekim 22:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand: the user's page, talk page, and contibutions all look (at a glance) legitimate. What makes you think otherwise? Aleta 22:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Check the page history [1], not the fake signature. WjBscribe 22:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Aleta, if you look in the history, the contributor's ID and the name on this page do not match. I know there are some admins with redlink userpages, but none with redlink talk pages. Jeffpw 22:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, now I see. Thanks WJB & Jeff! Man, someone's got to be really bored to want to try to pull crap like that. :( Aleta 22:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I did not make the above edit. I am currently on a hunt to find the person who did it. There will be banhammers ringing well into the night. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 00:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the sentiment behind that comment, but the whole idea of the "banhammer" is not good for the image of the project. We should be focusing on reforming vandals (most of whom are indeed bored kids who could potentially become contributors). bd2412 T 17:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would really be helpful to include the diff when performing such an action, to prevent confusion among less experienced users. And folks: Always indent your comments in these sections with a leading #. I dorftrottel I talk I 22:14, December 2, 2007
Support I've always found SatyrTN to be an extremely helpful editor, and I have no doubt he'll use the admin tools wisely. I see no chance for abuse here, and completely trust SatyrTN's judgment to effectively enforce our policies. - auburnpilot talk 22:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support - per comments by Dlohcierekim. PookeyMaster 00:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support No major concerns here. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 03:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good to see an admin candidate who doesn't want to machine gun every article he sees. The rumpus detailed below seems an isolated mistake which he has learned from. Nick mallory 05:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --- tqbf 05:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Just be sure to stick to your revised definition of vandalism. :P Other than that, seems like an excellent editor. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 06:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Has always been willing to offer insight and support and shown a true interest in improving Wikipedia. Benjiboi 09:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, has done an immense amount of work for the project. I'm unswayed by the objections - if anyone can do 24,000 edits without snapping at someone I'd like to see it! --Stormie 11:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I have a positive impression from previous contacts. The "vandalism" comment was unfortunate, but SatyrTN has apologized for it, and I take that as a satisfactory resolution. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, definitely! Neil ☎ 14:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Notwithstanding the error discussed by the opposers, I think this user will do just fine with the tools. He has proved helpful to various projects with his bot and he seems to know his way around. - JodyB_talk 15:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The Transhumanist 16:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support absolutely. The Rambling Man 16:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I think adminship has a lot to do with trust and I know very few wikipedians who are as reliable as SatyrTN and i think we can put a lot of trust in him. As for the confusion about the vandalism comment in the questions above, I think that everyone makes mistakes and it is the wikipedians who accept these mistakes that make good admins. He has spent a lot of time working for the improvement of wikipedia and I think adminship powers will give him the ability to help the project even more. Pi 17:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - with the caveat that I'd be happier if I didn't feel this (basically very sound) editor had canvassed me to comment on this RfA. Still, he's basically quite sound and worthy of the tools; just needs to watch some things like that. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC) (by no means flawless himself)[reply]
Support... file under "thought you already had a mop".--Isotope23 ^talk 19:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. One instance of mis-applying the term 'vandalism' (in an out-of-the-way place, and apologised for...) is not sufficient to outweigh the good points. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 20:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support In my personal experience with SatyrTN, he is one of the 2 or 3 people on WP that has provided me with the most assistance. His bot has enabled me to successfully revive WP:CHICAGO. I appreciate his efforts and refinements of the bot based on feedback.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If I was voicing my opinion based on the answers above I might not support because I follow FLC and clear promotes are promoted in 10-14 days. It is just the controversial cases that take so long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 22:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Definitely.↔NMajdan•talk 22:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I trust him. - Philippe | Talk 23:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Honesty and sincerity when making a mistake are paramount. Monsieurdl 23:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good. Hús ö nd 02:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A fine user. ➪HiDrNick! 03:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Lots of experience, no red flags. The bot demonstrates that SatyrTN is trustworthy and dedicated. Royalbroil 03:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - super editor, hard working and honest. While I acknowledge the concerns below, I don't think they warrant opposing, on balance. Should be a fine admin - Alison ^❤ 05:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa, almost missed your RFA! No question, Support SQL ^{Query me!} 06:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dihydrogen Monoxide ^♫ 07:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 08:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tennesseean cabal support. · jersyko talk 17:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I've seen this editor around for some time, and have never had any cause to question his character or integrity. I have no doubts that he would be an excellent admin. John Carter 19:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support pondering neutral. Though only after throughly looking through the contribs. You don't need to be an admin to promote FLs. At the moment, we need reviewers and not closers. They are going for a month because some have only received 2 comments in twenty days. I would have hoped that you would have been able to see that if that is one of your stated aims. Woodym555 19:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support as a hardworking, honest, experienced, kind editor. Very useful work at WP:AFD. No reason at all for anyone to distrust with the mop. Bearian 20:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support as SatyrTN seems interested in improving and developing the encyclopedia. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support more inclusionist that average, but knows policy and won't abuse the tools. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Trusted user who won't abuse the tools. -Djsasso (talk) 00:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'm confident the tools will be safe with this user. -MBK₀₀₄ 00:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Seems to be a sensible, trustworthy and experienced editor. I cannot see anything of substance in the few opposes below. And anyone whose been around here since July 2003 (I arrived in October) and hasn't collected some bad baggage along the way must be doing something very right. —Moondyne 02:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - He is a very experienced editor. He has made lots of edits. Why should I oppose? Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support professional and curteous editor.-Gilliam (talk) 07:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm Mailer Diablo (talk) and I approve this message! - 15:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, dedicated, well rounded and level headed. - Jeeny ^(talk) 00:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support; obvious one: he'll be an excellent admin, and has done tons of great work here. Regarding things we all wish we hadn't said (I defy you to find any 4-year-editor who has never done this at least once) please remember that this is a nomination for adminship, not sainthood. Antandrus (talk) 00:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Will use the tools well. --Shark face 217 01:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have nothing but respect and admiration for SatyrTN, both as a potential future admin, and as a very well established editor with impressive accomplishments who has helped many (including me). I have worked with him in many articles and AfDs. I think he will make a great admin, and he has my full trust. This is despite the WP:AGF concern on the part of the opposition !voters, because I believe that one very minor, non-confrontational, and learned from mistake is not evidence of a general failure to AGF. And I second Antandrus's comment above. — Becksguy (talk) 20:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support and good luck =) OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 09:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like a person who should have been made an admin a long time ago. While I don't believe I have interacted with SatyrTN before, I have observed their activities, and have found them to a be an experienced user. Acalamari 17:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support We've had a few arguments in the past, but he's recently started voting regularily in FLCs, so that's sealed the deal. However, FLCs have been taking a month because of the recent lack of voters (not because of a lack of closers), and one really doesn't need to be an admin to vote or close FLCs. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Dev920 & Wjbscribe --WriterListener (talk) 03:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pleasant, willing to listen, and willing to explain himself in my dealings with him. This is one admin who won't have a problem remembering that the admin is there to serve the community, not vice-versa. I invite SatyrTN to turn his finely-honed abilities to the ongoing saga of the Justin Berry article, my current primary source of WikiStress. --Ssbohio (talk) 04:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Belated support -- I've been on the fence about this one because of all the stuff about vandalism, bad faith, etc. Then I finally did what I should have done earlier: I went back and looked at the diff and at the context. SatyrTN was trying to calm down a friend by saying, yeah, I thought you were just reverting vandalism. Maybe this wasn't exactly the correct thing to do (so who's perfect?), but the mistake (if any) was in being too nice a guy. As character flaws go, that's not a bad one to have and it's the antithesis of "assume bad faith". --A. B. ^(talk) 15:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Four years and still not an admin with this skill? Well, we'd better hop to it, then! Auroranorth (!) 10:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - concerns brought up by me at Netural, seems overridden by excellent article contributions and four years of dedication. — Rudget _speak.work 11:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, looks good. Wizardman 15:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

~~Strong~~ Oppose per answer to question #5 (asked by me). This is a serious misunderstanding of the concept of "vandalism". Chaz ^Beckett 16:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Vandalism is the conspicuous defacement or destruction of a structure, a symbol or anything else that goes against the will of the owner/governing body, and usually constitutes a crime." - is that correct? No? Then I think he's okay ("Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.") --Dlae^{The Freudian Slip} 16:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that he referred to edit warring in a content dispute (see this history as "reverting vandalism". That's fundamentally at odds with the definition of vandalism, which never applies to content disputes. Chaz ^Beckett 17:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, I do have a problem with calling what happened "edit warring". Looking at the history, one editor was removing the material, four editors were replacing it, including myself (so maybe I'm not totally objective here). If one editor repeatedly adds "He's gay." (even if it's properly sourced) to Albus Dumbledore, is that a content dispute or anti-vandalism? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 17:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No matter how you look at it, it's still a content dispute. Perhaps one side of the dispute had much better and more persuasive arguments than the other, but it's not vandalism as defined in WP:VAND. I realize the "reverting vandalism" comment was made on a friend's page, which is why I asked for clarification in the question. Your answer reinforced that you were considering edits (that you opposed) made in the content dispute were "vandalism". I'm sorry, but correctly identifying vandalism is a fundamental part of adminship and I can't support at this time. Chaz ^Beckett 18:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Chaz, for clarifying your stance! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 19:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose content disputes are not vandalism. To say otherwise is to ABF.Balloonman 17:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC) Temporarily holding back final opinion. Will re-review.Balloonman 23:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC) Per discussion and further review, this still makes me uncomfortable.Balloonman 02:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up. I looked into this a little more and calling the dispute vandalism was a clear case of not assuming good faith. This was a clear case of a content dispute and it only occured yesterday. The wording between "gay" and "openly gay", regardless of sources, is content---not vandalism.Balloonman 18:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe SatyrTN got angry because he's gay. --Dlae^{The Freudian Slip} 18:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He may be gay... and I might be able to accept the fact that the comment was made on a talk page of a wiki-friend as compared to confronting the other party. But my concern is still with the way that he answered the question. Removing content (even well cited content) is not by definition vandalism. To label something as vandalism assumes malicious intent. The worst edits, if done with the intention of improving the article, are not vandalism. That is the heart and sole of Assuming Good Faith. His answer to question 5 above indicates that he does not AGF!Balloonman 19:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've mis-stated. I was a bit flip in my response to #5, but the intent in this particular instance did not seem to be to improve the article. I agree with you totally that intent is key. And my actions on the article in question followed along that reasoning - I AGF'd and added a sourced statement to back up why the word was there. Even when the word was removed again, I AGF'd and asked for clarification from the user. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 19:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a closer look at your edits to see IF I can change my !vote.Balloonman 23:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per previous two comments. Dispute v. vandalism seems like a pretty core issue for an admin. --- tqbf 19:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC) (change to support)[reply]
Oppose per the candidate's response to Chaz Beckett, stamped 17:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC). Such an application of "vandalism" by an administrator in that situation would a) be incorrect b) cause massive drama c) shut out an idea from discussion which is not vandalism. All three are not beneficial for the encyclopedias' development, and I can't support this nomination at this time. This interpretation applies through both blocking and protecting, and hence is serious enough for me to oppose in good conscience. Daniel 22:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't quite understand this. I would definitely call the edits in question disruptive, bordering on vandalism. They removed appropriately sourced material in an attempt to introduce untruthful citation of several reliable sources. It's also a 3RR incident ([2], [3], [4], [5]) and warning the user is fully appopriate. Or is there something I'm completely missing? I dorftrottel I talk I 23:57, December 2, 2007
Vandalism is narrowly defined as "...any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." Note that the word "deliberate" is emphasized in the policy. The edits in question were clearly part of a content dispute, no matter which side was "right" in the dispute. The word "vandalism" should never be used lightly because it not only judges an edit, it judges an editor. It implies that an editor was acting in bad faith instead of merely being misguided. Chaz ^Beckett 00:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SatyrTN's comment in question was in response to JeffPw, who had been blocked per 3RR, in spite of the fact that the edits he had been reverting were indeed compromising the integrity of Wikipedia. 3RR excludes only reverting vandalism, so I read SatyrTN's comment as saying that in his opinion, 3RR should not have been applied in this case to block Jeffpw. To which I fully agree. I dorftrottel I talk I 00:14, December 3, 2007
Then you're misreading or misunderstanding the vandalism policy. It doesn't apply to content disputes, only deliberate attempts to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. There are some cases where it's a gray area, but this isn't one of them; it's quite clearly a content dispute. In particular, see the "Stubbornness" section of What vandalism is not. It states "Repeated deletion or addition of material may violate the three-revert rule, but this is not "vandalism" and should not be dealt with as such. Chaz ^Beckett 01:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're absolutely right, Chaz, and I shall have to be more careful about my reverts. While the back-and-forth between Jeffpw and X3210 appeared to be simple reverting of vandalism, I've reviewed the whole exchange and it was definitely a content dispute. My comment on my userpage was meant as "sympathy" comments to a friend and was in no way a judgment of the edits or the editors involved. I don't know all the policies yet, so I apologize for that. Even just reviewing the policy so I could understand your "oppose" !vote I learned something, so thanks for pointing that out. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
oppose per above. I hate it when people falsely accuse ppl of vandalism. Srry. Stupid2 03:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As was pointed out above by another editor, One instance of mis-applying the term 'vandalism' (in an out-of-the-way place, and apologised for...) is not sufficient to outweigh the good points. We all make mistakes, even you I'm willing to wager. -- ALLSTARecho 23:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Neutral - This is going to make everyone outraged, but yes I'm going to go against apparent current consensus here. So why? Well this edit to one of your sub talk-pages wasn't very helpful, and in some ways could be interpreted as unnecessary not assuming good faith, however, I do understand you later apologised, you shouldn't just first lose your cool, you should assess the situation and make an appropriate response, without having the need to apologise later. This coupled with the fact that Satyr has very focused edits and practically no participation in XFD debates or ANI etc. makes me vote neutral. — Rudget _{contributions} 17:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC) changed to support.[reply]

Neutral. The key to question 5 is WP:AGF. If the removal of properly sourced information is done with the intent of improving the article (i.e. there's a better source out there, the information, though reliable, is out of date, or some other issue), then it's not vandalism. Even if misguided, a good faith attempt to improve the article can never be vandalism. That caveat is missing from the candidate's response, and that bothers me a bit. I'm going to review the (extensive!) list of the candidate's work to date, and shift to support if warranted. No objections at this time, beyond the above - I just want to think about this one. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 17:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even if there isn't a better source, removing content isn't necessarily vandalism. This is an encyclopedia, not a comprehensive book. There are simply some facts that aren't worth including! If the revision was done with the intent of making the article better (even if everybody else disagrees) then it is not vandalism.Balloonman 03:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. There's a lot of FUD flying around in this RFA. The "what is vandalism?" issue was unfortunate and recent, so it's probably nothing in the long term; however, the response to the question wasn't 100% on target either, which might cause concern. On the other hand, the chit-chat about AGF is petty. Nobody should be compelled to do anything. This is a volunteer project, and that applies equally to admins. If you offered someone to write a bot for them, and they don't follow up, that seems a fair enough reason to back out of the promise. I'd rather have an admin give up on something unpromising than live a frustrated wiki-life. Samsara (talk • contribs) 03:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like what I see for the most part, but the opposing sides' comments leave me unable to support at this time. Jmlk 1 7 18:06, 3 December 2007 (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.