Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Shubinator

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

Shubinator

[edit]

FINAL (100/7/1); closed by EVula at 21:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

[edit]

Shubinator (talk · contribs) – Shubinator joined Wikipedia around January 2009, and has since made about 11,000 edits and developed several tools (mostly for DYK maintenance) such as DYKcheck.js and DYKHousekeepingBot, as well as helping with templates. He has been a major asset to the maintenance of that project, especially on the technical side of things, and his technical expertise has also helped in other areas (for example, he also helped when I was working on my bot). While the majority of Shubinator's edits are DYK-related maintenance, he also has content experience: he's created several new articles and written an FA, Icos, which demonstrated to me that he knows what makes good content. Looking at his deleted contribs, he also has experience with CSD tagging for maintenance-related deletions, such as db-talk, and image fair use; in my skim of his contribs since about September I didn't see any incorrect CSD taggings. Finally, Shubinator is a very patient and civil user; I have never seen him lose his temper at anyone; the most recent content disagreement I see in his history is User talk:Nerdseeksblonde#Further reading sections, which looks quite civil to me. All in all, I think Shubinator's technical expertise, along with admin tools, will make him an asset to the areas he has experience in, particularly template/bot/script work (being able to edit protected pages, etc.) and maintenance-related deletions and such. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 17:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by JamieS93

Since he began editing in January, I've noticed Shubinator's continually helpful work with the Did You Know (DYK) process and I began following his contribs. Having accumulated nearly 2,800 edits to T:TDYK, he's very experienced with the process of approving hooks and maintaining accuracy with information on the Main Page. Shubinator possesses a solid knowledge of image copyright policy and has diligently worked "behind-the-scenes" tagging files with license issues (deleted contribs [admin only]). Still, he also manages to be a productive content writer, his most notable achievement being the improvement of Icos. Through his maintenance-related work, Shub has had some discussions and disagreements with others, all of which have been handled in a straightforward, productive manner. He has also demonstrated a fair level of clue during decisions and interactions with others – once, an editor offered him an RfA nom back in August (1) which he respectfully declined, feeling that it wasn't the time yet.

Another watchful set of eyes would be beneficial at WP:ERRORS, too. Considering his generally calm demeanor, technical abilities (as Rjanag covered above), and strong level of administrative experience, Shubinator would clearly be a net positive with the extra tools, and I'm pleased to co-nominate him. JamieS93 19:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Shubinator (talk) 18:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

[edit]

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'll mainly work with the Did you know section; anything from loading the queues to fixing mistakes reported at WP:ERRORS. The admin bit would also be useful for improving protected templates. I've done a little image work in the past, and I might help out there as an admin, with the coaching of experienced admins in the area.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My DYKcheck script has streamlined the DYK process for reviewers and nominators. It's saved a lot of human time and allows reviewers to focus more on content instead of checking off a list. Icos is my best content contribution. I nurtured the article from this to featured article status.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I've been in a few "conflicts", most notably this and with a troubled user (a few links: 1, 2, ended in 3). I try to discuss the issue at hand and I don't let my emotions get the best of me. If the discussion isn't going anywhere, I ask other neutral editors for their opinion.
Additional optional questions from Doc Quintana
4. What is your opinion on "cooldown blocks"?
A: Cooldown blocks shouldn't be used. A user can be blocked for continuing disruptive behavior, but if the user has stopped, there's no need for a cooldown block.
(Expanded) A user shouldn't be blocked just for cooling him down. However, if the user is vandalizing (for example), and hasn't stopped, he can be blocked for vandalism.
Additional optional questions from Coffee
5. If you were to close an AFD, on a BLP, (such as this), where there is no easily determined consensus how would you close it?
A. I don't plan on closing BLP AfDs any time soon. That said, I would default to delete on no-consensus BLPs if there's unsourced material. If the article's sourced, I would default to keep.
6. What is your opinion on the current BLP policy, and what work have you done (if any) with BLPs?
A. BLP articles certainly should be watched more closely than other articles. Our current system doesn't catch a fair number of false statements inserted into BLP articles. Just a week ago Wikipedia was in the news for an article stating a journalist was dead. We should find the right balance between "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" and protecting people. I haven't worked directly with BLP articles, but quite a few go through DYK. I've often asked editors to provide less negative hooks, and we've outright rejected a few articles that were almost entirely negative.
Additional optional questions from Davewild
7. Reference your answer to question 5 are you saying that if there is no consensus and just a part of the BLP is unsourced you will close the AFD as delete? Are you aware of what the Wikipedia:Deletion policy says about closing BLPs with no consensus and the discussion on the Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Default to delete for BLPs where defaulting to delete for BLPs was not accepted? Will you follow that policy?
A. If a part of the BLP is unsourced, I'd try to trim the unsourced parts and keep the remaining article. I will follow community consensus. Wikipedia:Deletion policy does say no-consensus AfDs should be closed as keep, but also says that no-consensus BLP AfDs may be closed as delete in certain situtations.
Additional optional questions from Friday
8. Your earliest edits don't look like they were made by a new editor. Do you have previous accounts you have used?
A. No. For the record, this account and my bot's (User:DYKHousekeepingBot) are the only ones I've used or created. Also, I made fewer than 10 edits as an IP before this account.

Questions from ArcAngel

9. What are/is the most important policy(s) regarding administrative functions?
A: As many of the admin functions require admins to measure consensus, and almost all should reflect it, WP:Consensus is the most important.
10. Could you please provide examples of inadequate reports to WP:AIV (that you would decline and remove from that page without blocking the user reported)?
A: Some examples: if the user's been inadequately warned (for example, only a level 1 warning), the user was warned a while back but hasn't been warned since, the user stopped vandalizing, or the user is involved in a content dispute (in which case the edits would not be classified as vandalism). (Note: Here user means user or IP; I was too lazy to write it out.)
11. What is the difference between a ban and a block?
A: A ban is the community's decision that a person should not edit in a particular area (for topic bans), or any area (for sitewide bans). A block removes editing privileges from an account (and often the underlying IP, for autoblock) for the entire site except the user's talk page. A block is the technical tool used to implement a sitewide ban.
Additional optional question from Seraphimblade
12. In consideration of one of the support comments, I see you had clarified a bit in question 7, but am still not exactly clear. Under what circumstances would you be inclined to close a "no consensus" AfD on a BLP as delete, and how would you have closed the specific AfD cited in question 5 had you been the one to do so?
A: If there was no substantial content left after trimming the article of unsourced statements, I would close as delete. I can't see the Shankbone article, but by the comments in the AfD it seems like sourcing wasn't the issue, so I would close as keep for that particular example.

General comments

[edit]

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

Discussion

[edit]
  • Hmmmm.. A new user shows up, uses good edit summaries right from the beginning, posts a userbox saying "I assume good faith" as their second edit, participates in RFA a mere few hours after their first edit, and then worries about getting CU'd because of it. This seems like a genuine newbie to you? Friday (talk) 21:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't say that. I said the questions he posted on Steve's talk page indicates that either he's a master sockpuppeteer who knows just the right questions to ask, or he was a legitimate new editor. In the spirit of AGF, I like to think the latter. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) Keep in mind I was watching Enigmaman's RfA the previous night, where AGF was thrown around a fair bit, as well as CU. How did I get to Enigmaman's RfA in the first place? I'm not sure. I was bored that night, so I wandered around quite a bit on Wikipedia. I remember reading some of the morass on Talk:Sarah Palin. Shubinator (talk) 21:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just my two cents on these points and Neutral #3 below... I don't think familiarity with process or jargon necessarily means someone has had an account before. Some people are naturally more careful/painstaking to read up on project pages before diving in much, and I know from personal experience that they can really suck you in. I knew about WP:SPIDER, WP:MASTODON, WP:COOL, and WP:EW before I had ever registered an account, because I had stumbled across project space once and was fascinated to read about this crazy community stuff. Sure, a lot of new users are pretty clueless (and many of us were clueless when we first started), but that doesn't necessarily mean a new user who's read project pages must be an old user with a new name. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 04:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The strange idea that all newbies are clueless idiots is a common one, sadly. It's unfortunate that new editors who follow the rules and do things correctly are automatically suspicious and get opposed later on at their RFA on very spurious grounds. As for myself, I started out on Uncyclopedia, months before Wikipedia, so I had familiarity with processes, syntax etc. I think Friday expects all newbies to be idiots, and anyone who isn't is a sockpuppet and not genuine. Majorly talk 15:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support
[edit]
  1. Samir 18:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    iMatthew talk at 20:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong Support Absolutely. He's been ready for months.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 20:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. As co-nom. JamieS93 20:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. I've worked with Shubinator before; he's a good guy, trusted and reliable. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Great editor; works well with others. Has a need for the tools as evidenced by his at DYK especially. Considering that I offered to nominate him a few months ago, I better offer my strong support for this request. NW (Talk) 20:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support; trusted, productive and experienced contributor. 20:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
  7. Support Have noticed Shubinator around at DYK for a while (he's given me several DYK credits!) and have not noticed anything bad there and being an admin will certainly help there. If you decide to close AFDs in the future I urge you to remember that the closers job is to decide consensus based on policy, not to decide what content should be in articles - your statement that you will follow community consensus and my own observation of your edits give me confidence that you will do fine as an admin. Davewild (talk) 20:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support your work at DYK is enough to make me support. You will be a great asset there.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 20:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - I trust the nominator and his explanation that this user will make a great impression in the DYK area as an admin. Schfifty3 20:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support I think Shubinator will use the tools well and for the benefit of the project. The answers to questions 1 and 5, in my opinion, shows that Shubinator won't jump into the deep end and will stick to what they're best at. The handling of the FAC discussion and the conversation with Nerdseeksblonde linked above demonstrate that Shubinator has the right temperament and leads me to believe they would make a fine admin. Nev1 (talk) 21:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Looks good to me. Malinaccier (talk) 21:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support - This user has lots of great DYK work, will make a good administrator. December21st2012Freak Happy Holidays! 21:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Despite the weak answer to Q4, which indicates that the candidate isn't really familiar with the blocking process, I'm willing to support without reservation. A cool-headed, kind, individual, it seems to me. I doubt he will go into areas he doesn't know straightaway or without experience. ceranthor 21:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Why not? -FASTILY (TALK) 22:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support - Many positives from this editor, no negatives that I see, and while a couple of the answers (particularly to Q4) are awkward, I don't see anything completely incorrect. (The gist of the 4th answer, that I got, was that CDBs shouldn't be done, and that blocks are meant to prevent disruption, not cool people down, which should be the main point; and I give Shubinator credit for trying to answer in his own words.) -- Atama頭 22:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Definitely! Excellent DYK work, (especially DYKcheck). Also per Ceranthor. LittleMountain5 22:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support I am happy with the replies to the questions, and see no real cause of concern. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. ad vitam aut culpam (NOTE this was to be support vote 2 before the rfa was un-transcluded pending the co-nom.) We should welcome prospective admins who can dedicate their time to areas other than XfD. Comprehensive experience with DYK and some experience in SPI is nice to see. Answer to Q4 is good by me. delirious ☯ ~ happy christmas~ 23:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support, with a Bacon martini raised. Cirt (talk) 23:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. Looks good to me. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 00:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support I'm sure you'll have familiarized yourself with the blocking policy (question 4) before this is over. Overall, very excellent work indeed. Good job!  fetchcomms☛ 00:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support No concerns with this user. Happy Holidays! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. Alison22 (talk) 01:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Indented vote from indef blocked sock account. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support -Coffee // have a cup // ark // 02:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. Definitely, helpful at DYK etc. More Main Page admins needed. --candle•wicke 02:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support should be fine with tools. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support I can see no reason not to support. No credible oppose rationale offered (at the time I posted this). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support DYK needs admin hands at the wheel, or the ship never goes anywhere. Good candidate, good history. Broader experience wouldn't be a bad idea before jumping into new areas, but every admin doesn't have to participate in XfD and the like to earn the mop. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 03:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support per User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards, as it is nearly my second favorite holiday, the candidate contributed to a featured article and six DYKs, User:Shubinator/Awards is encouraging to see, candidate has never been blocked, and current support is at 96%. Merry Christmas! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 03:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Wow, awesome editor will do good work with the mop. RP459 (talk) 04:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. As co-nominator. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 04:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. Don't have personal communication with the candidate, but crossed quite a lot at DYK. Impressions: they don't say much but say things well, solid and to the point - focus at the issue rather than drama; skeptical mind. All actions I saw demonstrate strong dedication to WP, and the technical abilities were of great help to DYK. In fact, I don't recall any, even minor blunder by this user, though those are quite common at DYK. Q8 doesn't really bother me - I feel the candidate was simply intelligent and knowledgeable enough for editing before starting (note, their first edits were not that technically advanced and the candidate is skilled in coding). I do feel I can trust the candidate. Materialscientist (talk) 05:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Strong Support. No personal experience with this user, but from what I've seen of his work he seems both dedicated and civil, and able to keep a level head while dealing with problematic users. Well suited for the mop. Angrysockhop (talk to me) 06:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Yes, I think so. I'm not seeing any alarms, answers seem sensible, should be an asset. GedUK  08:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support BejinhanTalk 10:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support No problems. Warrah (talk) 13:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Most certainly. He's among DYK's most valuable workers. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 13:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support A dedicated contributor, and a major asset to the DYK project. There is no evidence presented on socking (or even any blind guesses) and I'm not going to withhold my support based on anybody's gut feelings. All my interactions with this user has been good, and I believe giving him the tools will be a net positive. ≈ Chamal talk ☃ 14:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Yes.--Microcell (talk) 14:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. The main page background areas definitely need more admins looking after them and Shubinator obviously knows what he's doing. Trustworthy and competent. The concerns over hosiery are totally absurd- that kind of thing could easily be learnt from surfing WP without editing. The lack of edits to the mainspace and project space concerned me at first but then I saw the edits to talk and template talk, of which 397 edits are to T:TDYK and he's managed a FA on the side! Impressive. Merry Christmas, HJMitchell You rang? 16:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Shubinator's contributions to DYK have been valuable and knowledgeable (as Materialscientist noted). His DYKcheck tool is a very valuable tool that has saved me and others a lot of time. To me, this shows a good admin's attitude—he sees where he can help and does it. In fact, I'll have to enter the cliche that I actually thought you were already an admin—and a good one at that.

    I don't completely agree with your way of handling BLPs, but your answers appear to be within the bounds of admin discretion supported in recent precedents. Opposing over differences in opinion, or in interpretation of policy (where the interpretation is reasonable) is unproductive, but I feel that this is what Seraphimblade is doing in his oppose. (Also, I think Seraphimblade should consider Shubinator's answer to Q7.)

    RMHED's oppose is baseless without any supporting evidence. I haven't seen any reason not to trust Shubinator, but would urge any user who has evidence to the contrary to come forth with it instead of just asserting it.

    I don't see the fault in the Q4 response that Doc Quintana and Smithers7 see. Shubinator is right that a cooldown block in itself is not acceptable, but that in cases where one would consider a cooldown block, a block for vandalism or general disruptiveness may often be appropriate anyway. Shubinator's answers are all succinct and to the point—an additional argument in favor of granting him adminship.

    The concern expressed by Hobit and Friday doesn't seem well-founded. True, Shubinator showed a pretty good understanding of wikisyntax in his earliest few edits, but that's understandable for someone who has done some IP edits before and who has taken the time to get a bit familiar with the syntax. Note that his first edit was not as flawless as one would expect from a returning user, as shown by his use of third-level headers and bare-URL references.

    In summary, Shubinator is a valued contributor who will undoubtedly also be a valued admin and the comments under "Oppose" and "Neutral" lack solid ground. I'll take this opportunity to correct the bad Latin introduced by one of the users who were so kind to support my RFA and say: Tribue virgam! Ucucha 16:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC) (edited 16:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

  41. Support Good DYK work. --JN466 16:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support I don't see any issues with this candidate. I am confident that when it comes to BLP AFD's, candidate will do the right thing. ArcAngel (talk) 17:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support - No huge concerns. smithers - talk - sign! 18:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support - Looking at my own first (logged in) edits, they seemed pretty advanced too. Not everyone comes to Wikipedia with no wiki-editing experience, or even with no wikipedia experience. This might sound egotistical in light of my last statement, but I think the early advanced edits demonstrate a good sense of WP:CLUE more than anything. Gigs (talk) 18:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Strong contributor to the project. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support File this under "They weren't an admin already?!" Shubinator is a hardworking, experienced editor who seems trustworthy. I'd like to thank him for his useful WP:DYKcheck tool and his helpful bot. With his wealth of DYK experience, Shubinator surely will be a tremendous help at WP:DYK, which is always in need of more administrators, and at WP:ERRORS. As for the whole "BLP no consensus" debate, I don't really like seeing either side use RfA as a battleground. Candidates for adminship, in my opinion, should not be judged on that issue alone – and besides, Shubinator closing an AfD as "no consensus, default to delete" would hardly be different from, say, Coffee doing the same. The candidate's answer to Q12 leads me to believe that he would do just fine closing AfDs. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support User has shown his continued dedication to the project and has shown via talk and project pages that the candidate has the mature, patient, and helpful attributes that will only serve to better Wikipedia. See no reason that the tools or responsiblities given will be misused. Calmer Waters 23:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support I loved the questions/answers. --MisterWiki talk contribs 03:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support per above comments. — ækTalk 05:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Tim Song (talk) 08:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support - Solid editor, even temperment, reasonable answers to questions, highly doubtful that they are likely to misuse tools. Easy to pile on in support. Happy holidays! Jusdafax 10:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support because the candidate is a frightful bore and therefore is more than suited to the role. Should be a bureaucrat. Crafty (talk) 12:19, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support: An asset at DYK and elsewhere, good temperament, positive lack of drama. Concerns about "clueful" newbie are paranoid, I think. Not everyone has to start off being an idiot; some of us read before leaping. Maedin\talk 16:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Yes, looks a good prospect.  GARDEN  19:21, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Because you're a good editor, and the opposes (#1 and #2 in particular) are weak, baseless and irrelevant. Majorly talk 19:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support: Clearly an expert in the DYK area, and I think admins with specific areas of interest are very desirable. Possible lack of expertise in other areas doesn't worry me, because this looks like someone who would not take on specific admin tasks without acquiring appropriate knowledge first. Vague "I don't trust him" Opposes are very weak. Criticising someone for not appearing dumb enough when they first started contributing also seems weak. Oscroft (talk) 20:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. Fully qualified candidate, no concerns, looking to do useful work with administrator tasks that always could use additional staffing. The opposers' rationales are completely unpersuasive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support, per rʨanaɢ and my own observations of his work at DYK. —mattisse (Talk) 20:19, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support - meets my usual standards. Has rescued an article. Is clueful. Bearian (talk) 20:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support Constructive, valuable edits. No concerns with this user.  IShadowed  ✰  21:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Merry Christmas to a great candidate. Ret.Prof (talk) 00:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support - Not much more needs to be said. Great editor who I can trust with the tools. Airplaneman talk 03:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support Have crossed paths with Shubinator many times. I see nothing that gives a worry, and much that gives confidence. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support I found this a very interesting application. This editor has an extremely in depth contribution history outside of the article namespace and in areas that are in dire need of help. Providing this editor with the tools to bring about more profound improvements to Wikipedia would be in our best interest. Mkdwtalk 07:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support no reason to think they'll misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support A year of solid contributions? Green tickY Works smoothly with others? Green tickY Demonstrated interest, skill, and potential for usefulness in sysop areas? Green tickY Three checks and you're in! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support as someone who will provide useful admin work in a few specialized areas where there is a real need, and who has shown a good administrative temperament in the relatively few instances of being in a conflict with other users. (I would suggest that you take it slow in moving into other, more contentious, areas of administrative work.) --Tryptofish (talk) 15:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support based on work at DYK  Francium12  19:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support Good track and feel the project will only benefit with the user having tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  70. - Great contributor to DYK, appears to have clue, genuine need for the tools due to his work on templates etc. Gatoclass (talk) 02:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Hmmm. On looking at your earliest contributions, I get a Pastor Theo (talk · contribs) (aka Ecoleetage (talk · contribs))-like feeling—heh, you and PT began editing only ten days away from each other—but I highly doubt that one account would vote support while the other opposes if that were the case. The excellent work you have done, especially at DYK, and your answer to question eight dissuade me from believing this line of thought, so support. Hypothetically speaking, if you are a sock, I believe that you will continue the great editing you do and not get into trouble like your former account did. This would have a nice side effect of making you a big net positive. I just pray that you don't break this leap of faith I am making. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support As someone whose first edit led to an accusation of being a sockpuppet, you have my sympathies (and support). Does a fine job on DYK, has a clue, and seems very mop-worthy, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Support like I did last time around. ReverendWayne (talk) 05:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC) (Sorry, edited wrong section.) ReverendWayne (talk) 05:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support Three of the four opposes honestly make me laugh. Let us assume for a moment that you are a sockpuppet. Well... then you are a pretty damned useful sockpuppet and I would support you anyway. You have excellent conflict resolution skills, your knowledge of admin functions is very good. The chances that you will delete the mainpage or break the Wiki seems remote. That's pretty much fulfilled all of my requirements. Trusilver 09:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support I've observed his nothing but good activities in DYK areas for a while, so I can easily say he earns my thrust.-Caspian blue 14:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support. Plenty of skill and no sign of trouble. I liked the answer to Q3 and the links there that showed clear thinking, calmness and positivity in a challenging situation. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support Seems like he knows his way around. LouriePieterse 21:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support – I've seen Shubinator around for a bit, and I'm sure he'll do a fine job. –MuZemike 05:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  78. I have nothing but good impressions of Shubinator from interactions at DYK, and they have sufficiently advanced understanding of high-content and enough clue to become involved in other administrative areas competently. Thank you for your very valuable contributions to the encyclopaedia, Shubinator.  Skomorokh  08:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support, after thinking on this further and examining the edit history, as well as getting a good answer in clarification, I can no longer see anything that would lead me not to support. And I don't like the idea of "WAY TOO COMPETENT INITIALLY!" opposes either. A lot of people cut their teeth editing as IPs and/or bothered to lurk and read up on things before wading in. I see those attributes as a positive, not a negative. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support. Shubinator is a hard worker and has a cool user name. What more could we ask for? Oh yeah, that they don't cheat and lie--I'll assume good faith, and have no reason to think differently. Good luck, Shubinator! Not a stub anymore, haha! Drmies (talk) 14:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support—all the "oppose" rationales are so mind-bogglingly [insert Wikipedia-suitable description here] that I really have no option! ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 23:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support. Recognize this candidate from DYK. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Oh noes, someone who's read the rules and guidelines before he started editing! Must be someone's sock. GlassCobra 04:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support. Anirishwoman (talk) 08:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support —Terrence and Phillip 09:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support. PeterSymonds pretty much says it. I'm certain Shubinator will be a good addition. Kanonkas :  Talk  12:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support, but first edits seems rather peculiar for a new user. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 16:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support After reading your questions and answers, I'll be honest, I'm still not exactly sure where you stand in regards to AFD's. That said, there doesn't seem to be any complaints about your work in DYK. I do hope that you follow through with your plans to use the tools in those areas you've mentioned, and not jump into new areas too quickly.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support - Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 17:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Strong Support Very qualified canidate. Btilm 17:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Wizardman Help review good articles 17:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support. Generally good contributions. I am unconcerned by the implication that he might have been experienced prior to creating this account. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support. Great candidate with superb DYK work. Good luck with the mop! Laurinavicius (talk) 18:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support. Long overdue. ERK talk 23:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support. Shubinator is a trustworthy and helpful contributor whose access to administrative tools will benefit the project. —David Levy 02:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - highly qualified, great on DYK. For the record, during my RfA, I was also questioned about my immediate ability to make edits as a newbie. Just read the "new admin school" pages and you'll be fine. Bearian (talk) 06:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck as a duplicate vote. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  96. Support, no problems here; obviously capable of reading documentation before jumping in and doing anything rash! Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  97.  Support Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Shubinator. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 15:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support, nothing I can see to not trust the user with the tools. --Shirik (talk) 17:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support. Experienced, responsible editor who addresses policy issues clearly and accurately. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  100. WP:100 Support - Upon a second (last-minute) review. I believe I can trust you with the tools. Good luck! iMatthew talk at 21:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
  1. Oppose I don't trust you, probably someones hosiery. RMHED (talk) 01:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Your rationale makes me want to indent this entirely inappropriate oppose. Please explain why you have chosen this rationale... The Thing Merry Christmas 01:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My oppose is entirely appropriate, adminship is fundamentally about trust, I don't trust this user. RMHED (talk) 01:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure this oppose based on a "lack of trust" means a lot coming from an editor that falsifies their contribution history to Wikipedia on their user page. -- Atama頭 02:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You are assuming this is my first Wikipedia account, it isn't. RMHED (talk) 02:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you suggesting you have a sock puppet? Mkdwtalk 07:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Atama: Seriously? If I see someone quote one of those damn awards again I'm going to send them up for MFD. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 02:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (←) Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, including RMHED. Leave him be. Shubinator (talk) 02:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, but I would ask if RHMED could give some examples (preferably with diffs) showing when the candidate has shown that they cannot be trusted. No one has to provide a detailed rationale (indeed, you are entitled just to sign it with no comment), but as granting adminship is all about trust, I'd be interested in knowing why you feel that you cannot trust the candidate — it might be that specific examples might be useful in changing other editors' support. If you genuinely have reasons for not trusting this user (as opposed to either a gut instinct, or a personal reason), then evidence of that would be very illuminating for this RfA. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Atama, please do not resort to personal attacks. Aditya Ex Machina 17:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Merry Christmas to everyone and see you in the new year! - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A follow-up to my comment; I don't believe my comment was a personal attack, but it was certainly an ad hominem, unnecessary (would anyone take this "oppose" seriously anyway?) and as Coffee has hinted, lame. Not my best showing. I'll strike it out although it should go without saying that I'm still not comfortable with this opposition rationale. -- Atama頭 21:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose per answer to question 5. The correct response to unsourced material in a BLP would be to remove that material, not nuke the whole thing. Recent discussion at WT:DEL did not show anywhere near consensus for default to delete on any articles, including BLPs. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC) Neutral for now, answer to my question gives me more to think on. [reply]
  2. Early editing behavior is suspicious for someone claiming to be new. This could be a real newbie, but evidence suggests otherwise. So for me, this one does not pass the smell test. Friday (talk) 16:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Last I checked, we assumed good faith when presented with personal suspicion. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps we should change our welcome message to caution new editors to demonstrate a sufficient level of incompetence early on. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is why I make sure to always maintain a minimum level of incompetence. ;-)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Weak oppose per questions 5, 7, 12. No consensus defaults to keep, except for marginal BLPs where the subject has requested deletion. That's the way things are right now, and we don't need admins who would close contrary to existing policy. If you think consensus should change, the correct thing to do is not to close such discussions in the hopes of ramming changes through - it's to either argue to change the policy, or vote for deletions in those discussions. RayTalk 17:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Though they have said they wouldn't close BLP AfDs. GedUK  17:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hence why this is weak. To be pedantic, the candidate has remarked that they will not be closing BLP AFDs "anytime soon." However, the questions have repeatedly asked the candidate to carefully consider the situation, and, having done so, the candidate has still not come up with a reply I would consider satisfactory. On some level, that speaks to either a distinct difference in philosophy or judgment that makes me uncomfortable. RayTalk 22:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Lack of experience outside DYKs. I'd like to see at least a few edits in general "admin" areas, so I can be sure that the candidate can handle requests if asked to do so. Also the candidate's early edit history is suspicious (edit: like mine), but perhaps does not warrant an oppose on its own. Aditya Ex Machina 17:53, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, it does not, considering this. Majorly talk 19:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, you're right. Edited. Aditya Ex Machina 19:21, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A few edits: at AfD, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7; at RFPP; at AIV, 1, 2, 3. Unfortunately I can't link to successful CSDs. Shubinator (talk) 19:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's really not much, but looking through your contribs a bit more I'm tempted to withdraw my oppose. I'm not comfortable opposing your RfA, since there's so much more you could help out with as an admin. Aditya Ex Machina 20:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose on trust issues. Something is going on and with that feeling plus what Ray points out above I feel I need to oppose rather than declare neutrality or simply not voice an opinion. You really knew what you were going to do when you started editing, and how to go about it, but you're so uncertain about BLPs and consensus and what you'd do as an admin in those situations while declaring you want to be an admin. I have to ask myself, what is going on here? And I have to declare that I oppose your adminship based on that. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 23:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You do realise opposing this candidate marks you out as a bad person? Crafty (talk) 05:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Lol, Crafty. Thanks. It's nice to pinpoint where the reputation started. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 19:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope that was a joke from Crafty. If it's not, please make that clear. Shadowjams (talk) 10:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose It does not make sense to have as admin such a newcomer. Voui (talk) 07:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. It's a straight "oppose" from me; I only got as far as Q5.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 09:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose. Unimpressed with DYK work. Seems too afraid of stepping into discussions concerning contentious subjects, as if there is something to hide. Seemed like he was a lackey to user: gatoclass (who imo runs the dyk suggestion line with an iron fist). Perhaps I'll come up with some diffs but the history of the DYK suggestion page is a bit unwieldy, as it gets hundreds of edits a day. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe you're looking for this discussion. Shubinator (talk) 20:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
Neutral Unsure about answer to #4. I'll look further through the candidate's contribs and i'll be willing to change my opinion with further statements from others here. Doc Quintana (talk) 18:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC) Expansion of answer to #4 is ok, vandalism blocks are fine, but cool down blocks are not, IMO. I may support in a bit. Doc Quintana (talk) 02:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now. I want some more in question 4. smithers - talk - sign! 21:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC) Moving to support. Thanks for explaining more. smithers - talk - sign! 18:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral Those early edits, even the early questions, look like an old hand. That said, I've no real evidence, it's impossible to prove one way or the other, and it appears this editor has been doing a great job thus far. So here I sit. Hobit (talk) 04:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral for the moment. After getting clarified, I need to think some more on this one. Want to clarify that this is because the candidate seems to have clarified he won't be overzealous on BLP, not the "You can't oppose for THAT!" bits.Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC) Moved to support. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:00, 28 December 2009 (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/Shubinator&oldid=1091462175"