Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Samtar

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Samtar

Final (179/6/5). Closed as successful by WJBscribe @15:50, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Nomination

Samtar (talk · contribs) – Samtar has been here for over eight years, from mid teens to early 20s. In that time Sam has made some nicely diverse contributions, has kept a clean block log, is a clear and civil communicator and is an OTRS volunteer. Along with a rare combination of serious IT skills, Good humour and both understanding of and commitment to the pedia. In short a candidate who has both contributed to the pedia and helped defend it from spammers and vandals. I believe that Samtar would be a useful addition to the admin cadre and commend them to the community. ϢereSpielChequers 15:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination

Well, where can I begin? I have a history with Samtar, and a good one at that. Samtar is definitely one of the most civil users online I've interacted with. Sometimes I monitor his contributions, and can see him welcoming new users and trying to help them. If possible, Samtar always tries to do the most civil thing. If it is a content dispute, Sam would talk with the user. If a new user does something wrong, instead of "warning" them Sam would start a topic on their talk page explaining why the edit was not good, how it could be fixed, and also refers them to other help forums in case they need more help. Sam has helped me when I was new at OTRS, and even when I was a moderately new, not-so-competent editor and guided me. Samtar is, definitely a net positive to the project and I fully trust him with the tools. Dat GuyTalkContribs 15:37, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you both for your kind nominations, I accept -- samtar talk or stalk 15:49, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

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

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I would start working in AIV blocking vandals similar to those I have been reporting, and would use the additional tools to assist in my edit filter management (such as blocking vandals which hit multiple private filters and maintaining the title and spam blacklists). As I am already active at UAA I would also work through the backlist which often appears there to ensure that username policy violations are handled in a reasonable time.
Another area I would take part in is requested technical moves where I already make round-robin moves using my page mover permission.
In time, I would also cautiously start working in other areas.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I believe my best contributions to Wikipedia have been to articles such as Church of Saint Winwaloe, Gunwalloe, my work creating and maintaining edit filters, and in the interactions I have had with new users. The church has a significant history which has always greatly interested me, and now can be read about by people around the world.
Another area of contributions I believe are some of my best is my work as an edit filter manager, which involves the creation and maintenance of filters designed to log and prevent vandalism and other disruptive activity. I would also like to believe my time spent talking to and helping new editors can be counted as a significant contribution to the project.
I've been involved with giving help and advice on my talk page and the help desks and like to think I have not only been able to assist, but have done so in an approachable manner.
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 had a disagreement with Pigsonthewing over a user online template (diff), back in October of 2015. I’ve since apologised and we’ve interacted positively. I have come to realise Andy is an authority on Wikidata, something which without his informative comments, I would still have ‘’no idea what it really is’’.
This incident has taught me to keep calm when it gets heated, and to step back and realise we’re all people who deserve nothing less than civility.

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Additional question from Lourdes
4. The abusefilter flag is given to Wikipedia's most trusted editors. Only a small minority of administrators dabble in edit filters. What have been your broad significant contributions in the edit filter space since being granted the abusefilter bit? Can your contributions in the edit filter space be considered a mirror of how you'll use your admin bit? Thanks.
A: I believe some of my most significant contributions in the edit filter space have been to those which help prevent long term abuse accounts from disrupting our noticeboards and reference desks. My contributions there have been careful and considered, and I have always sought the advice of more experienced filter managers when I've needed help - in this way I would consider this to be a mirror of how I would use the admin bit. -- samtar talk or stalk 16:29, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Ottawahitech
5. Can an article about a notable subject be deleted if it is deemd to have No indication of importance (A7)?
A: Per A7, an article which is absent of a claim of significance or importance can be deleted under the CSD criterion - however, if the article's subject is notable it would likely be possible to improve the article and include an indication of importance. -- samtar talk or stalk 16:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from User:Nsk92
6. In your answer to Q2 you listed Church of Saint Winwaloe, Gunwalloe, a stub-class article, as an example of your best contributions to Wikipedia. Your user-page lists the total of 10 articles that you created, most of them very short stubs (like Pompano Platform, Benguela-Belize Lobito-Tomboco Platform and Cesar Ritter). Could you point to some other examples of substantial content work on your part, e.g. where your did substantial work on improving and/or expanding specific articles? Did you ever think of trying to create longer articles, or doing more article writing?
A: My content creation on Wikipedia has been limited, although I have been working on this with the help of some experienced editors on articles such as Cafe Royal Cocktail Book. I tend to work on content when I come across it in my new article patrolling or when a new user asks for help - a recent example of this is Ana Stjelja. Although not as experienced with content creation, I have great respect for those who do and understand the difficulties they often face. -- samtar talk or stalk 17:02, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from RileyBugz
7. Would you be willing to help new editors by giving them information or commenting on their edits for mistakes they might have made and then fixing or helping the new editor fix such mistakes?
A: Yes - we were all new once, and Wikipedia has some rather tricky polices which take some time to get your head around. I think taking the time to help new editors is something we all can and should do -- samtar talk or stalk 18:25, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from User:Unscintillating
8. Is "[[WP:N|non-notable]]" an argument for deletion at AfD?  Include mention of WP:DEL8, WP:ATA, and WP:ATD in the answer.
A: WP:N (specifcally this part) can be used as an arguement for deletion at AfD, although more specfic notability guidelines exist. Both WP:DEL8 and WP:ATA support the use of WP:N as an arguement in an AfD, but not as the sole reasoning as per WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE. An article which is being argued for deletion due to notability could alternatively be redirected or merged to a article broadly covering the subject, as WP:ATD suggests. -- samtar talk or stalk 19:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from User:Hchc2009
9. You mention above that you understand the difficulties often faced by those creating content. Could you briefly outline what you feel these are, and how you would address them as an administrator? Many thanks. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:24, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A: I've come across these difficulties in a number of places, both here and writing for my degree. I believe these issues can be summarised as the feeling of disappointment and frustration from the work someone has put into a creation just to see it tagged for improvement or deleted. Although we often cite the fact that "no one owns an article", for many new and experienced content creators there is always an inherent pride in their work, which so often leads to the outbursts we see from new editors not yet understanding our policies. As an administrator, I would try to be empathetic to their frustration and guide them where able. -- samtar talk or stalk 08:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you'll forgive me a quick follow-up... you've focused on new content creators in your answer. Could you expand a bit on the difficulties faced by experienced editors creating content? Hchc2009 (talk) 09:08, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course - although my described level of pride and the resultant frustration is often more relevant to newer editors, I believe it still affects our experienced content creators. Those who have learnt the ropes and are very used to creating quality work can be equally dismayed to have their work tagged, vandalised or deleted. -- samtar talk or stalk 09:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Chris troutman
10. A year ago you asked about RfA at ORCP. You couched your request as "one of very few non-admin ArbCom candidates". Could you address, in light of your lack of significant article contributions, your enthusiasm for being behind the scenes of Wikipedia?
A: Wikipedia is, and will always be, something I am passionate about. It's clear from my article contributions that I do not find content creation as captivating as others do, but instead that I wish to volunteer my time and energy into areas where I have both skill and an interest. My tilt last year in running for ArbCom was a misguided desire to help the community, and not gain any sort of "power" or to collect any hats. -- samtar talk or stalk 15:46, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Ottawahitech
11. Many here believe that wp:Content creation is a very important skill for wannabe wp:ADMINs. Some even use it as a criterion to oppose candidates who do not have sufficient experience creating content at Wikipedia. Do you believe it is important to have this experience?
A: I believe an understanding of content related policies and being able to empathise with content creators is important - I don't believe this experience can be gained solely from creating content, but can be gleamed also from interacting with both articles and content creators themselves. -- samtar talk or stalk 16:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from User:SilkTork
12. Someone makes a statement that they have a certain knowledge or understanding; they are challenged on this statement, and their response is vague, so they are asked to clarify, and in their answer it is clear they don't have the knowledge or understanding they claim, but they are standing by their statement. What would your advice be to them? SilkTork ✔Tea time 03:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A: This would depend on the context the statement was made in - if the user was making this statement on their user page or talk page and not in the context of discussing an article then I see no need to offer advice. I appreciate in your question you mention it is clear they don't have the knowledge or understanding but I'd rather err on the side of good faith. If, however, this statement was being made to back up an addition or removal of content to an article I'd drop the editor a line reminding them that knowledge/understanding of a topic does not grant the editor any privileges in resolving conflicts (and likely link to this essay) - I wouldn't nessesarily give them advice about lying -- samtar talk or stalk 10:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from SSTflyer
13. You see these usernames at UAA. What do you do?
  • Alt-right supporter
  • Hardwired to self-destructSelf-destructSelf-destructSelf-destruct
  • Lack of oversight
  • Jordyn.jones
  • Ronald Reagan International Airport
  • Video games
  • WikiPortals & Projects
A: I was waiting for this one!
  • Disruptive/offensive and would block
  • Somewhat confusing, but no real need to be blocked (unless they're also being disruptive). Would drop a line suggesting changing their username to something shorter.
  • Could very well be a dig at Wikipedia, and could very well be perfectly innocent. I'd have a look at how they've been editing to make any further judgement.
  • A quick google shows there are some rather popular people with that name. I would advise against real name use but decline blocking.
  • Promotional (and possibly shared) - would block and advise to change their username.
  • Again there is no policy reason to block this straight off, but I would review their edits carefully.
  • Misleading and would block with advice to change username.
-- samtar talk or stalk 11:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Ks0stm
Couldn't let you get away without having to answer a question on IAR, so here goes. ;-P Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 20:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
14. Please give an example of a situation or situations in which you feel it would be appropriate to invoke IAR.
A: A common situation where IAR is invoked appropriately is when a RfA or similar is snow closed to help prevent overly bureaucratic discussions and undue distress to the candidate. -- samtar talk or stalk 20:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from SSTflyer
15. As a follow-up to Question 13, can you elaborate on why "Alt-right supporter" is a disruptive or offensive username?
A: I believe "Alt-right supporter" should be considered disruptive/offensive due to the topics the alternative right are commonly associated with. Wikipedia needs a safe and collaborative environment to function effectively, and for certain people this username is going to affect that – I’m not suggesting holding this view in and of itself should be a reason to block (though disruption or personal attacks caused by this view certainly are), but that the username itself is going to affect harmonious editing. My block message would contain advice on changing their username -- samtar talk or stalk 08:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

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

Support
  1. Support as co-nom. Dat GuyTalkContribs 15:52, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong Support - I always said I would support this RfA when it started, and I will do so strongly. Samtar is an excellent candidate and there should be no issues with him becoming an admin. Good luck! Class455 (talk) 15:55, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support- Absolutely. Quality candidate. Reyk YO! 16:00, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support no reason to think they'll misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:02, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Absolutely trustworthy and mature. One of the editors I recall perhaps having said they should apply for Rfa. Lourdes 16:09, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support --Marvellous Spider-Man 16:10, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support -- Has always been a civil contributor, IMO. I see no reason not to give him my support. N. GASIETAtalk 16:16, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  8. 100% Support - Excellent candidate, Very mature and I have to admit their clean block log has amazed me!, Anyway no issues, Good luck :) –Davey2010Talk 16:17, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support No reason not to. Linguist Moi? Moi. 16:22, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Great candidate that I have seen around and who I think would be an excellent admin. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:29, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Absolutely trustworthy. Derakhshan (talk) 16:50, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Would make an excellent admin. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 16:52, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support: Great editor and would do a great job as an admin. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Looking very, very good indeed. Good judgement and lots of experience; no concerns from me. Minima© (talk) 17:10, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support - I have seen him around and I have always found his comments to be insightful. He's a dedicated and clueful editor. I believe that he would turn out to be a fine admin. Yash! 17:40, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support User shows enough competency to be trusted with administrative rights. — Music1201 talk 17:50, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support without any second thoughts. Dschslava Δx parlez moi 18:09, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support I'm especially impressed by his very early interactions with other editors via his archived talk pages. Mature, civil, and helpful from the beginning. This is always a positive sign, but especially from someone who joined the project so young. Joyous! | Talk 18:17, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. A clean block log after eight years is something of a concern, certainly, but thank you for being upfront about it, WereSpielChequers. Apart from that, I know no ill of the candidate, and lots of good. Bishonen | talk 18:28, 27 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  20. Support I am very happy that this editor is so good in his conduct with new users and he seems very helpful. As a editor that is still learning, this means a lot to me. This is my first time voting, I hope I did it correctly. RileyBugz (talk) 18:37, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support No doubt about it, this user has need for the tools, is always good tempered and won't abuse them. Agree with Bishonen's concerns about the block log though...must be the log page malfunctioning though so will give benefit of the doubt. Seriously though, he'll be great and is an asset to the project. Mike1901 (talk) 19:00, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. I am not unfamiliar with this user. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support - good candidate, with both a use for the sysop bit and the competence to use it. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 19:50, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. I've seen Samtar around quite a bit, though our own interactions were brief. I've seen competence, ability, understanding and humanity. The only question is, will Samtar use the tools as he should, and I'm confident of a "yes". —ATS 🖖 talk 19:52, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:12, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support No problems apparent here - a fine admin in the making. Rcsprinter123 (indicate) 20:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Would make a fine administrator. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support I've worked closely with Samtar on several projects, and can attest to his kind demeanor and eagerness to help others. His strong point is likely on the technical side of things, but I believe he has the competency to handle all areas of adminship, and will prove to be a valued addition to the ranks — MusikAnimal talk 21:00, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support it's about time! Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:02, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. Samtar will be a net benefit to the project. He has the right temperament and some special skills that will come in handy as an admin. The lack of content creation was a predictable issue, but it's not one for me. He's unusually mature and deliberate for a 22-year-old, and all my interactions with him have been positive.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:04, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support: I would prefer more content creation other than some stubs and start-class articles but otherwise qualified candidate. Esquivalience (talk) 21:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support, will be a net positive. -- Tavix (talk) 21:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. Obviously a net positive for the project. Steel1943 (talk) 21:22, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Support based on competent and useful edit filter work. BethNaught (talk) 21:24, 27 November 2016 (UTC)moved to oppose BethNaught (talk) 18:48, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Good candidate. → Call me Razr Nation 21:45, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support seems to understand the anti-vandalism system and would thus appear to be good for AIV. The object below re edit count seems to miss the fact that it is important to notify editors when their edits are reverted due to vandalism. Hence the high user talk count, I guess (18K+ is a lot to review!). Iadmc (Jubileeclipman) (talk) 21:47, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. Appears to be a net positive to the community, I believe I can trust them. JudgeRM (talk to me) 21:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. Thought you were already an administrator, which indicates you have the qualities of an administrator. ~ Rob13Talk 22:13, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Why not? Mike Peel (talk) 22:20, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Great editor, will be a net positive. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 22:29, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support An excellent nomination. And Adoil Descended (talk) 22:30, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support I see nothing that gives me reason to think they would be incompetent or careless with the tools. Quite the opposite, in fact. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 23:27, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  42. (edit conflict)Support I've seen them around, and they would be even more of an asset with the mop. Oppose #2 has to go. Miniapolis 23:29, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support- trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Seems to be a fine addition. Long history of editing the pedia and the civility is a great plus. Valuable to have someone who is good working with newbies. Tfkalk (talk) 00:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support - no reason not to. Banedon (talk) 00:56, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support - Very happy to support an editor who will be excellent with the tools, can communicate professionally, and will be a net positive. RickinBaltimore (talk) 01:08, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  47. (edit conflict)Support I would like to see more substantial article creation, but the candidate will, on the whole, be a net positive. Joshualouie711 (talk) 01:11, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support While your low levels of mainspace had me concerned initially, your other contribs, especially towards dispute resolution, make up for it. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support I'm happy with the contributions I've seen, and I think the unique editing profile is a net positive. Smmurphy(Talk) 01:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support - Well-qualified candidate who will be able to make good use of the extra tools. —DoRD (talk)​ 01:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support - Edits look good; lots of user talk edits but for good reasons and seems to have a thorough understanding of policies. -- Dane2007 talk 02:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support - I favor ease of tool acquisition for vandal fighters. While he joined Wikipedia in 2008, actually has been active only since 2015 — but with about 7500 edits per year over the years of real activity has been sufficiently involved to learn the ropes. Clean block log and no indications of assholery. Carrite (talk) 02:24, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Most civil user I have seen yet. Full RuneSpeak, child of Guthix 02:45, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support. The myopic focus of some with content creation at RFA doesn't sway me. Yes, an admim must be able to understand the hurdles dedicated content creators go through, but where would we be without admins who can handle the back-end technical aspects of vandal fighting, the extreme patience required to welcome inexperienced good-faith editors into the fold, and desire to do the day-to-day maintenance on this beast of a wiki? Everything here points to an editor possessing civility, technical expertise, good judgement, and desire to better the project; this involves maintaining and judiciously protecting a mountain of existing content, which at this point is probably more important than just creating a bunch of new articles. Sorry for the rant. Antepenultimate (talk) 03:11, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Candidate appears highly civil and has a technical expertise which is highly-useful to the project. That's enough for me. Ajpolino (talk) 03:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support I take Ritchie333's point, and cross-checking with AfD points to some of the same concerns about command of content policies--but in the end, I think there's no editor who knows every corner of the project, and instead what we should hope for are editors who demonstrably work well enough with others that we can count on them to make good use of their own strengths and then heed advice from others in any areas they know less well. I'm totally persuaded Samtar fits the bill--thanks for standing for adminship. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support Qualified and trustworthy. Acroterion (talk) 03:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support. Though Ritchie brings up good points on their talk page, I believe Samtar will still be a WP:NETPOSITIVE. Anarchyte (work | talk) 03:45, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support. Clear net positive with the tools. Tazerdadog (talk) 04:11, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Strong support. I've worked with Samtar in the past on some edit filters and I'm sure they'll do a great job as an admin. No concerns. Omni Flames (talk) 04:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support. Seems like an excellent candidate for the tools. bd2412 T 04:24, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support. My usual research shows that is very familiar with admin areas like UAA, AIV, AN, and ANI. His work with edit filters demonstrates skill with tools and trustworthy application of them. He has a clean block log and appears to be pleasant and even tempered. His article creation record is not extensive, but he can do good work (the cocktail book he cited above is quite good). Bottom line, I think he would be a good administrator and I trust him with the tools. --MelanieN (talk) 04:51, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The article as I found it contained what I thought was an obvious factual error - the book was published in 1937, not 1973. It also contained the error in three separate places; one error can be easily explained as an obvious typo and not an issue, but three? I later had to remove content because the claims were not in the sources given, and had to criticise the DYK nomination for suggesting hooks that were not in the sources cited in the article. Okay, we all make mistakes, I certainly do, but this just seems a little bit over the line of not taking quite enough due diligence. To Samtar's credit, he has been very civil and willing to listen to criticism and feedback, which is why this is a "near miss", not a "no way". I do not want a repeat of this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I must say, that was precisely the reason I opposed Oshwah's RfC, that said, I don't think Samtar is comparable in this way. Samtar has at most inexperience in content creation, but, there's nothing to me that indicates the possibility of a rash decision in terms of blocks, or vandals. He's not too quick to judgement in the same way that Oshwah is/was - identifying trends before the evidence is there to support such an assumption cost him in the case you bring up. That said, Oshwah hasn't had too much trouble as admin, so slip up aside, I have no reason to assume that this is part of a forming trend. On the topic of the article, umm... citations 1 and 2 (subtle actually, citation 2 is to EUVS talking about the book, but not the book itself) are to the same source are they not? as is I believe citation 9. why are they separated and in completely different formats. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support. Babymissfortune 04:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support I'm surprised this user isn't an admin already. Feinoha Talk 06:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support as no-big-deal.--v/r - TP 06:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support - Like I said in my initial neutral vote, I think Samtar is an editor with good composure, who thinks through things before acting. One of the key things that I expect from an admin is the right temperament, and I think Samtar definitely has that. I did note Slon's oppose bringing up improper tagging of articles with CSD tags that aren't applicable or the BLPPROD tag misuse, but, I don't think that goes to any sufficient length to discredit the editor or more importantly, to change my mind. 1,400 patrols and a few errors, balances out. Errors are made, and I'd probably recommend that Samtar be particularly cautious at CSD except that CSD isn't going to be their main line of work. That said, if you do get into CSD look carefully at the article before deleting under A1 - due to the occasional quick-tagging - and A7 - due to some misunderstandings of it. All of that said, and with my support in hand, I'll take a final moment to note that I would like to see more content creation or expansion - and that I find it rather weird that you'd go through the AfC process, only to handle it yourself. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:08, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support Nick (talk) 09:10, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support because I see no good reason not to. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:42, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support - no real concerns, NETPOSITIVE etc. GiantSnowman 09:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support Oripaypaykim (talk) 09:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support Looks like a strong candidate to me. There are plenty of people who I trust and respect here in the support column, so I'll paste my name up here too. Good luck Samtar - it doesn't look like you'll need it, but good luck and good vibes never hurt anyone. :-) lNeverCry 09:57, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support - I have had positive interactions with Sam and consider him to be helpful. No issues whatsoever (and he's already an edit filter manager, which shows he can be trusted - he's the only non-admin I know with the right). Best of luck! Patient Zerotalk 10:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support Having seen him around on ANI here and there, I've noticed that he's generally level headed and reasonable. Have no problem supporting. Blackmane (talk) 12:08, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support. likely net positive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Support No problem with him becoming an admin. JustAGuyOnWikipedia (talk) 23:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC) duplicate vote[reply]
  75. Support No concerns. — MBlaze Lightning T 13:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support with pleasure. Kurtis (talk) 14:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support Plenty of experience, will be a NETPOSITIVE XyzSpaniel Talk Page 15:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support have seen Samtar around quite a bit, and although he's always been the epitome of friendly and helpful, I think he has shown substantial growth in the last 9 months regarding nuance of policy and also what makes people (for that's what editors are) tick. Will make a good admin. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:38, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support Seems like a good candidate for having all the tools with his maturity and experience. --Frmorrison (talk) 15:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Strong Support SamTar isn't an administrator yet?? I am legitimately surprised! UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 16:57, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Qualified support. I have seen Samtar around, and always found them to be level headed and exceptionally courteous. They also have a demonstrated need for the tools. I qualify my support for the following reasons. I am not overwhelmed by their content work. Admins don't need to have multiple GAs, but they need to have enough experience with content to deal with the admin side of content. There are several Afd votes, for instance, that seem hasty. Ultimately, though, I see Samtar as a person willing to accept and learn from their mistakes (the Afds are evidence of that) and so I am willing to trust them with the tools. Vanamonde (talk) 17:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support. Edit log and answers to questions look good. I'll take WSC's word for this candidate's overall quality. Deryck C. 18:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support - no issues, lots of experience. Bearian (talk) 18:34, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support Excellent experienced candidate, already familiar with the tools and the issues to be dealt with. Fbergo (talk) 18:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support well qualified candidate, I see no issues here. JayJayWhat did I do? 19:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Yep. No reason not to support. — foxj 19:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support, based on review. Does need to work more on content creation, but that can be done. Kierzek (talk) 19:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support enthusiastically. I was already leaning towards support, and Samtar just did an outstanding job of defusing a very upset editor on IRC. I think his skillful handling speaks volumes about his temperament and potential to be an excellent administrator. The WordsmithTalk to me 20:42, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support plenty of experience and I have no concerns. Lepricavark (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support In a rather uncharacteristic volte face I have changed my mind - having seen Samtar's attitude and willingness to do things, I think we can get the content stuff sorted out in the next few months working on a few DYKs together, during which time the likelihood he will cause major disasters is, let's be fair, low. I seem to recall Dennis Brown did a similar thing by working closely with Eric Corbett to beef up his content skills. So let's give Samtar the benefit of the doubt and the mop and bucket. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support a net gain for the project. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support Excellent contributor and will be an equally excellent admin. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support Yes indeed!! Atsme📞📧 21:59, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support Seems to be an excellent example of a user who should have the mop.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  22:03, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support. This is an easy support for me, given the candidate's proficiency with technical matters and with discussing matters of dispute with other editors. I'm not much of a fan of using numerical criteria for evaluating experience (although I'm prepared to make an exception for Bishonen's excellent idea). Very well-qualified. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Full Support He is definitively a great candidate to become an admin. JustAGuyOnWikipedia (talk) 23:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support while I would like to see some real content contributions (one GA at least), in all other respects this candidate looks the goods, and I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt. I would just caution them that the only real way to understand the content creation side of WP is to actually do it. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:21, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support No reservations. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support User has technical experience, and has shown the ability to understand policies. There is nothing that stands out as to why they should not have the tools. -- The Voidwalker Whispers 01:35, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support - About time. I'm glad you ran ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:45, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support Given all the negative light Wikipedia has been under for harbouring uncivil users that "scare off newbies with 'WP:SPA!!!!'", I think Samtar's a useful package for us to have. From what I see, they're mature, levelheaded, and civil. I'd prefer a mature, levelheaded, and friendly user taking the mop than a prolific content creator and vandal fighter all bundled into one that leaves snide remarks in edit summaries and discussion pages. (Also dammit Oshwah for the edit conflict) —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 01:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support Friendly, willing to help, and clearly understands how this place works. Bradv 03:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support Helpful, friendly, and pretty knowledgeable from my interactions. Sn1per (talk) 04:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support One of the most genuinely helpful and caring editors on the project. I've never seen him use his temper and is great with the edit filter. I think Samtar would be an amazing asset with the tools! --Cameron11598 (Talk) 05:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support because Wikipedia needs more active administrators, and this user is clearly a net positive. kennethaw88 • talk 06:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support Seems to have the temperament I'd want in an administrator. ~Awilley (talk) 06:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support. Exhibits good temperament, general competence, no convincing opposes. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 10:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support You pulled the trigger without me? *pouts* *gets over it* Katietalk 11:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support. Fuortu (talk) 12:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support This user's history of experience meets my expectations. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:04, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Samtar is a level-headed and helpful person. Has the qualities expected of an admin, and I'm sure they'll make a pretty good use of the mop. Regards—UY Scuti Talk 15:45, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support. Samtar is a conscientious editor and I am confident that they will make a fine administrator. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:25, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support. AIV and UAA, where Samtar has indicated he's interested in working, need help clearing out backlogs. No issues from my own quick review, and I also trust WereSpielChequers as a nominator (with all due respect to Dat Guy). ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:47, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support Yes the CSD issue is not good, but it is a common failing, and reviewing the policy every now and then should help avoid it. More to the point we expect some bad CSD nominations: that is why the deleting admin has a duty to check the CSD carefully rather than just clerk the deletion - as certainly has happened in the past. Good luck Sam. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:24, 29 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  115. Strong candidate, persuasive nomination statements. – Juliancolton | Talk 20:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support Fully competent candidate who will make a helpful addition to the admin team.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 00:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support I have only good memories of Samtar's work. I think he is going for admin a bit early, but I also think he can contribute well in house-keeping areas. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support Good contributions to much-needed areas of the project and a professional demeanor. I trust that the tools will be well used. --Nick⁠—⁠Contact/Contribs 00:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support This editor doesn't create as much content as I would like to see, but I got to know them through 75.108.94.227 and I trust them. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:14, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support I was thinking of opposing because he doesn't have a combination of 15 years in the project, 25 FA's, at least 90% article space edits and at least 20% project space edits... but I'll hold off on that for now. He'll be a net positive with the mop, and that's all I'm looking for. PGWG (talk) 03:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Couldn't have put it better :) Lourdes 03:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support Why not? -FASTILY 04:04, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support per Fastily :P I have come across this user many times, will do a good job as an admin. Jianhui67 T★C 04:04, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  123. When I nominate a candidate I try to hang back before supporting, and then use the support to respond to statements made in the discussion. Currently these range from the candidate only having 18,000 edits and only 3,700 of them being to articles to them not having created 25 articles. For the record plenty of fine admins had fewer than 3,700 edits when they first passed RFA, and with over 5 million articles there is ample room for those who only improve articles that others have started. Years ago I was accurately described by one of our leading deletionists as a "Hemp clad, sandal wearing, patchouli smoking inclusionist", and yet I would no more oppose a candidate for not having created new articles than I would for not having uploaded files, edited filters or maintained DYK queues. There was a time when we had an admin coaching system and potential admins would dutifully tick off various desired activities to make themselves a better RFA candidate; There are good reasons why that system died. I would really prefer it if we could amend the RFA process to one where as with most other userrights we define a criteria for adminship and decouple the debate about changing that criteria from the debate about an individual candidate. If that isn't realistic, and I appreciate the difficulty of even agreeing some minimum criteria, may I suggest that those who seek to introduce novel or harsher criteria for adminship do so by debate at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship, rather than by opposing a candidate for not meeting a novel criteria? ϢereSpielChequers 12:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support- I hear making people admins is the best way to get rid of them since most disappear within 1-3 months, so long Samtar, nice knowing you (though we never met and i have no idea who you are) ..--Stemoc 12:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support. Will be fine. fish&karate 12:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support: Per Fish and karate. --Mhhossein talk 13:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support: Good to see Samtar in WP:RfA. Good candidate, hassle free and very dedicated. Has been around for a while and is very constructive editor. Having editors with positive attitude will certainly help the community; especially once when they become admin. I wish him all the best. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 13:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Support I was wondering recently why Samtar wasn't an Admin. I'm sure he'll be a good one. As others have said, helpful, friendly, level-headed, etc. Familiar with the areas we Admins work in, good with edit filters, etc. etc. Doug Weller talk 13:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Support I thought Samtar was an admin, to be honest. The relatively weak content contributions gives me pause, but not enough to not support when I see the support from others I respect. Should be fine, though taking time for more content work would be desirable. EdChem (talk) 14:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Support Net positive. I think there is still room for improvement in some areas, but I think that he can be trusted with the buttons and that he will continue to improve as a result. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Support: Per nom and (grin) per Bishonen. 8 years clean is worth a lot. But I do so with some hesitation due to the lack of content creation edits; I share the concerns others have expressed that this user may not fully understand the challenges facing those of us who work on quality article improvement; we suffer no real lack of eager newbies who do need to be brought along, but we are hemorrhaging experienced editors who get discouraged with the never-ending grind and lack of support. I chose to support rather than stay neutral because we need more admins with clue, and I hope this nominee has that level of insight and clue to grow into the role. Montanabw(talk) 17:48, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Support Looking at some of this candidates contributions I see friendliness, thoughtfulness, civility, and patience. Ideal. Poltair (talk) 20:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Support - Everything looks good to me, and the answers to the questions are satisfactory. Inks.LWC (talk) 23:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Support: There is administrative work that needs to be done and samtar has shown that they are capable of it and unlikely to screw anything up.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  23:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Support, please keep doing what you are doing, and being sensible. Risker (talk) 03:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Support - The articlespace/content experience seems to be the only real objection, and while not ideal, it's hopelessly outweighed by the reasons to support. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:09, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Support: (edit conflict) Not really seeing any good reasons to oppose, and all my interactions with him have shown him to be trustworthy enough for the tools. -- AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 04:12, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Support very experienced and will do good work as an admin. Wikipedia will benefit overall. Gizza (t)(c) 05:15, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Support: I have seen Samtar's work and I think Samtar will do a fine job. I think he has worked hard in the past year to build his record in line with suggestions at Wikipedia:OCRP a year ago. His demeanor and civility are important traits for an administrator. He has a willingness to learn and I do nor foresee him working on new areas without learning about the policies and issues. He could use a little more content creation along the way to become more familiar with issues that can arise but I think he has a good enough grasp of the issues and policies to merit support now. His technical skills are also a plus. I agree with User:WereSpielChequers that novel and harsher criteria should not be the basis for an !vote. These get further and further away from key issues such as trustworthiness, good demeanor and interactions with others and familiarity with policies and issues, especially in the areas in which the candidate has worked or intends to work. Donner60 (talk) 05:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Support. Yes! -- Ϫ 08:35, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  141. This candidate has received so much support because he played safe and stayed out of controversy. Count this as "support because I have not found a deal breaker". SSTflyer 10:29, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  142. —Kusma (t·c) 12:21, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Support – whilst I would have preferred the candidate have more experience (in terms of volume of editing, rather years), I'm really satisfied with their work thus far; AIV gets ridiculously backlogged, and another administrator familiar with the board and interested in anti-vandalism work is always a plus. Having further reviewed his edits, he appears to have the temperament that one would expect from an administrator, let alone, an editor. Samtar: I wish you all the very best! —MelbourneStar☆talk 12:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Support, qualified and dedicated editor. No concerns about gaining access to the tools. --Laser brain (talk) 14:38, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Support: This editor has a clue and is well qualified and dedicated to the project. I think he has a good grasp of the policies and the key issues the project is having. - tucoxn\talk 15:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Support. Absolutely no concerns. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Support. An enthusiastic and friendly editor who will work on backlogs and technical matters. Reminds me of Oshwah, whom I also supported. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Support as appears fully qualified and prepared for adminship. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 23:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Support The opposes do not cut it for me. Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Support Many of his contributions and his breadth of experience and knowledge don't show up when you look at his Edit count. Not perfect but he has earned trust. Strong support even though I won't bold it. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 03:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Support, over 18 thousand edits and a sizable chunk of those in the mainspace. No evidence user would misuse the tools. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:34, 2 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  152. Support, almost forgot he wasn't an admin already. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:05, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Support After reading all this, I feel comfortable supporting. VegaDark (talk) 08:46, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Support Definitely qualified enough, no particular problems. Why not? Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
    to reply to me     13:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  155. Support Good candidate.FITINDIA (talk) 16:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Support I've now had the opportunity to look over Samtar's work, and I believe he would make an excellent admin. A lack of any serious red flags is enough of a reason to support in itself, but the candidate's edits seem to be of high quality while his temperament and character (from what I've seen) leave nothing to be desired. AlexEng(TALK) 19:53, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  157. Support I've always had positive and cordial interactions with this editor. They meet my RfA standards and I have no reason to believe they would misuse the tools. Mkdwtalk 20:15, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  158. Support: Article issues are somewhat a problem but Sam will do great with the mop. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 20:36, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  159. Support After going through his history I think the user is a very level headed rational person and also knowledgeable about the admin areas. Content work and mainspace edits are on the lower end, but that's not an automatic dismissal. I haven't seen anything which would indicate that this editor could cause problems with the admin rights so I think it will benefit the projekt if he get the tools simply per WP:NETPOSITIVE. Dead Mary (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  160. Support I don't usually go in for pile on !votes when the outcome is almost certain, but the previous successful candiate missed out on the WP:200 club by one vote, so I thought I'll make sure I'm not to blame this time! Optimist on the run (talk) 22:00, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  161. Support - quite qualified. Jonathunder (talk) 22:02, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  162. Support Samtar has been helping me maintain and improve The Wikipedia Adventure with a mix of diplomatic, personal, and technical skills. Strong desire to take on responsibility mixed with the sensibility to do it well and the diligence to actually follow through. Lower content creation doesn't concern me; it's more than enough to know where not to step his foot, and there's no need to keep otherwise very useful people from having the bit. Ocaasi t | c 22:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  163. Support I believe this candidate is very qualified and will make a great admin.Jiklo1569talk 22:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  164. Support Samtar's on his way. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 00:43, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  165. Support Seems to be OK. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 01:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  166. Support This is a productive editor and I see no convincing reason to oppose. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:33, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  167. Support. Each time I have come across Samtar, I have noted their strong communication skills. That's a great asset in an admin. agtx 07:28, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  168. Support Those are some good answers. I've run into samtar a couple of times, and they are definitely a good editor. I'm also glad to see (though it's not my primary "support" reason) that samtar is active on [{WP:IRC|IRC]]. We need more admins on there to deal with immediate problems, in my opinion. — Gestrid (talk) 08:14, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  169. Support Good candidate with no significant reason to oppose. --I am One of Many (talk) 08:46, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  170. Support User demonstrates consistently sound judgement in both highprofile and spadework areas of the project: clearly, they require the toolbox in order to augment the work they do already. Solid editor = admin material. Muffled Pocketed 11:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  171. Support I have full faith and confidence. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 12:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  172. Support - only concern I have is with answers to the UAA questions. I encourage the candidate to ask questions and accept criticism regarding their understanding of the policy before working in this area, but I don't think you'll deliberately misuse the tools. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:25, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  173. Support: Will make a great Admin. per comments above! - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:14, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  174. Support Yay, another admin with edit filter tools! GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 21:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  175. Support I'd normally oppose requests by those with low article edit counts but Samtar is such an exceptional candidate I have to support anyway. Clearly he should be elevated to join the majestic luminance of the Administrative Colossus. LavaBaron (talk) 04:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  176. Support. Article creation isn't everything, and Samtar's a good candidate. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 12:30, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  177. Support. Some things give me pause, like the answers to questions 8 and 9, which are on the thinner and weaker side. I wonder how he would deal with complicated disputes and issues like like civil POV pushers and others who superficially abide by our policies but whose interests are not in creating the best possible encyclopaedia. This is where more time in the mainspace would be advantageous. Certainly I would suggest treading lightly if you get involved in the sorts of areas that require complex decision-making where there isn't always a right answer, particularly contentious topic areas where there is fault on both sides. Nonetheless, I've seen enough of him in his 'natural habitat' to be sure that he make excellent use of the admin tools in his specialist areas and that he is sensible enough to seek advice if he gets stuck, and there are many wise editors and admins above me in this section that he could turn to for such advice. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:35, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  178. Support. Like anyone, I can be wrong, or at least indecisive, but with such overwhelming support including from a lot of people whose opinions I very much respect, it would be silly for me to remain sitting in the neutral section. Especially, as I said below, I have personally had the best collaboration with Sam. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:57, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  179. Support very qualified. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 15:50, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Only 18k edits in 8 years, only 23% of which were to articles (3,700), while 44.6% were to User talk pages, and 14.3% to Wikipedia (which adds up to just below 60%). I thought we were here to create and improve the content of an encyclopedia, but in any case, I prefer admins who understand the pressures and problems of the content workers here. Could be a perfectly lovely person, might be an excellent admin, but the profile provided by the editing stats doesn't match my criteria. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:38, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly, that edit profile just sounds like someone who prefers to work in counter-vandalism and deletion areas, since (mostly) every reversion and deletion nomination require a user talk notification. My own user talk space edits have ballooned in the last year as I've focused my administrative work on UAA and AIV, requiring that I make large amounts of block notifications to user talk pages. Basically, I personally wouldn't read too much into the edit profile when it comes to competency with the administrator tools, as there are very few administrative tasks which are going to be kind to your proportion of article edits. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 23:24, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I use a different standard to judge the edit profiles of admins, arbs and other functionaries, who have other project-valuable activities to cope with, but I really do want an admin to understand the content creators and editors, since they are the backbone of the encyclopedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose that's fair. I can understand that concern, even if it's not one that I personally find to be a deal breaker. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 03:40, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose with regret per everything I have already said on his talk page. I told you very clearly to wait! Like Kudpung says, you'll probably pass this under the current percentages, just keep the feedback on board and remember that with great power comes responsibility. (moved to support) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 00:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. I'd like to begin by saying that I definitely appreciate the work the user has done, especially in AIV. At the same time, there are a number of issues that end up being deal-breakers for me. The first is content creation - I don't have too high a bar for this, but I think ALL admins need to have some experience in substantive content creation (Q6 also read my mind), such as a GA or at least a couple of C-class articles. Now, perhaps even more importantly, is knowledge of CSD - especially for a person who wants to help with counter-vandalism as an admin. I have some concerns about his understanding of how strict certain deletion criteria area, especially A7, and am also concerned about hastily tagging without giving due time or checking history. Examples are: [1] (A trade union of 14,000 members tagged as A7, and failing to check article history for a clean version before tagging as G11), [2] (tagging an article that survived AfD with A7), [3] (tagging an article as A7 just 6 minutes after creation, which was declined), [4] (improperly placing a BLP-PROD to an article with a source), [5] (A7 tag of a published academic with several claims of significance). Of course, all of these are issues that can be addressed and I'd be open to supporting in a later RfA, but the combination of a lack of content creation and concerns about CSD tagging mean I have to oppose this time.--Slon02 (talk) 04:59, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Seems too inexperienced. For example, he recently nominated the Cafe Royal Cocktail Book for DYK. I like the topic but it struggles to pass WP:NBOOK and the nominator seems quite unaware of the peril. Getting the hook right seems to be causing difficulty too – initially making overbold claims for the content. Andrew D. (talk) 20:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Since when did nominating anything for DYK become a cause for concern over whether an editor could be an admin? This is probably the most bizarre oppose I've ever seen, and I've seen many, especially from this user. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I take it you haven't seen the "Oppose - 5 years is not long enough tenure" on the other RfA currently running then? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:53, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, there's an even weirder one now, opposing for having created an important article but not personally developing it into something great yet.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    DYK is somewhat similar to AFD in that it typically deals with the evaluation of new content. Admin tools are needed for the process because the main page is protected. As the candidate is currently engaged in this process and I have good experience of it myself, it seemed reasonable to look at the details of how he goes about it. His work shows promise but seems to be at the low end of the learning curve. Andrew D. (talk) 22:38, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose—you have not created twenty‐five articles, and therefore fails my criteria. —MartinZ02 (talk) 18:05, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @MartinZ02: So you would support an editor who has written 25 stubs, but not a different (hypothetical) editor who has written 5 FA's, 10 GA's, and 5 Featured lists? ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:27, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    "Criteria" is a plural. We don't know what the others are. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
    @ThePlatypusofDoom: I would support the candidate, if (s)he has created enough articles to potentially get the autopatrolled user‐right—assuming the editor has also met my other criteria. —MartinZ02 (talk) 22:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be interested to hear the reply to this as well. I would think someone who had significantly contributed to high-quality articles but created few articles would be just as trusted with autopatrolled as someone who had created 25 stub articles from scratch. Hard line criteria are rarely useful in evaluating someone's true suitability for the user rights that come with the sysop bit. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 20:25, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say User:MartinZ02 isn't taking seriously the advice he was given a month ago. His black and white perspective of adminship will inevitably get him in trouble here, and for RfA his !votes will be taken less seriously, as 25 articles in a time and age Wikipedia covers just about every notable subject one could think of, is just a ridiculous requirement for adminship.—cyberpowerChat:Online 13:52, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    MartinZ02 makes a good point. Autopatrolled status "is automatically granted as part of the administrator tools package". An admin not only gets this status, they also get many other powers including the ability to "grant the autopatrolled right at their discretion". It therefore follows that they should fulfil the minimal requirement for this lesser status which is "creation of 25 valid articles". If 25 articles seems like a lot, please note that the number was originally 75 but this was reduced to 50 and now 25. Editors like Samtar, who have only created a few articles, do not qualify. Andrew D. (talk) 22:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Andrew, the package of tools admins are given is large: and I do not know of a single admin who is completely comfortable using all of them. If "they must know how to use every tool" was really our standard, we would have no admins left. The question should be "do they know how to use the tools they want to use, and do they have the judgement to stay away from the tools they don't know how to use?" Vanamonde (talk) 04:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose  The question I asked, #8, was not necessarily an easy one, and I could hope that someone I didn't know who presumed to be an admin-class editor would either have enough sense to know that the question was outside his skill sets, or provide an insightful response.  Within ten minutes we got a response, now corrected, that WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions supports the use of the arguments therein.  Even with the appreciated correction, there is no sense of thin ice here.  Even if someone is not good at proofreading, the four typos are marked in an edit window with red underscores.  And the grammar error ("a article") should not require advanced proofreading skills.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:48, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I respect your question and vote since they seek to address issues specific to admin duties. I do, however, think the question could have been a bit more clear. Lack of notability is a valid reason for deletion, but as WP:ATA suggests, it is more productive to explain why a subject is not notable. I think the question could be interpreted as asking if a subject being non-notable is a valid reason for deletion at AfD. Alternatively, as I think you intended, it could be interpreted as asking whether an AfD !vote that only states "[[WP:N|non-notable]]" in its entirety is productive. I suspect Samtar answered the first interpretation, then realized that you probably meant the second interpretation, and adjusted his answer. Both answers are correct with regard to each interpretation. That being said, spelling/grammar errors at RFA aren't pretty, but I don't think they suggest lack of admin capability. --Nick⁠—⁠Contact/Contribs 02:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose (moved from support) I supported on the basis of good edit filter management, but now I see he supports using an edit filter to ban emoji from edit summaries. BethNaught (talk) 18:48, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Is that a real reason? Or an excuse to change a vote to oppose? It makes me wonder... UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 12:51, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow. You've persuaded me to support with that reason.  :-) Risker (talk) 03:16, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This is interesting indeed. I accidentally typed an Emoji when trying to write an edit summary from my iPhone and accidentally pressing the Emoji gallery key (or whatever it is called these days). If an edit filter flagged that before I pressed "save changes" then maybe I would have had a second chance to get rid of it! I do think that edit summaries need to be brief but accurate; I am unsure if and how an Emoji could convey this. Still, good find, I am interested and intrigued. Patient Zerotalk 12:39, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, supporting edit-filtering emojis in edit summaries strikes me as a positive as well. Using them in sigs and talk page posts is one thing, but edit summaries are supposed to be informative, even if clipped.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    SMcCandlish: Agreed. I can't see how a small photograph could convey any accurate meanings when people interpret Emojis in different ways. Not to mention they could be used in the edit summaries of vandals in a deliberate attempt to disrupt. By the way, I found my aforementioned edit. Feel free to laugh. :-) Patient Zerotalk 14:07, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Consider parked at neutral for now because his articles have issues previously. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I'm been doing 16:25, 27 November 2016 (UTC)(Moved to support)[reply]
Might you have some diffs KGirlTrucker81? I know there are some kinds of article issues that would worry me more than others, would be great to know what we're talking about (plus maybe Samtar would have relevant info to add). Thanks! Innisfree987 (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC) Answered by Ritchie to my satisfaction! Innisfree987 (talk) 03:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral leaning Support - Samtar is an editor I have had multiple collegial interactions with, and who from my experiences strikes me as both capable and collected. I do note that Samtar has only been particularly active since August last year - no qualms with this at all just a note. I expect I'll move my vote to the support camp very soon, but, I won't vote for or against a candidate till I have done some "background" checks. I am curious if Samtar has had any involvement in article content disputes or GA/A/FA reviews. These aren't the most important metrics, but, as somebody who has been involved in very heated debates on certain article talk pages, I'd like to know that an intervening admin has a good understanding of article policy and resolving content disputes. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:06, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you interacted in college, you mean "collegial" not "collegiate". Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:31, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond My Ken - you are correct. Fixing. Thanks, Mr rnddude (talk) 22:58, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:00, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've done my thinking, reading, and listening, and have moved to the support camp. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral (moving to support). I'm going to sit this one out. Samtar is keen, friendly, and with his IT skills has been of great help to me on one or two projects. I have the very best of interactions with him, and I'm sure he has the right temperament. However, just over a year ago (before the RfA reforms) I gave him a 3/10 chance for RfA while also finding it odd that he should already have made a bid for Arbcom. All the edit counters are down again (::sigh::), but the last time I looked, he has in fact only been effectively been editing for just over a year. Thus, even without the revelations made by Ritchie333, which of course give me pause, I would probably have hesitated before supporting right now. Look, Sam, you're doing a grand job, keep it up, under the new rules you'll probably pass anyway, but take take everything on board.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral. Seems to have the right temperament, but the answers to Q.9 don't give me a sense that they're very familiar with the problems facing experienced content editors - which is important when resolving disputes etc. Will wait and see what else emerges. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral because of the comparatively low contribution level for such a long tenure. We need admins who are genuinely, regularly active. Adminship is not an award for how early one created an account. That said, I cannot see anything seriously problematic in Samtar's output, I have no prejudice at all toward infrastructure-oriented editors (being one myself) even if I do like to see plenty of content creation, too, and what I have looked at is quite positive, aside from the DYK quibble Ritchie333 had. I don't have the heart to oppose, but there's not enough "meat" there for me to support yet. A few months ago I would have opposed on that basis, but I'm revising my personal adminship criteria to be based more on what has been done (pro or con) rather than what has not.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:46, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral. Good candidate, however the low content output keeps me from voting support.--Catlemur (talk) 22:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral - As this RfA is apparently heading for an almost sure pass, I'll leave these comments here: The user here has really only been very active on Wikipedia for around 17 months and only has, IMHO, way too low an edit count (around 23%) to actual Wikipedia articles. Their AfD stats of around 72% "green" results (when one takes into account "No Consensus" closes with user "Delete" votes as "red" results) are also a tad low IMO. Good luck in any event... Guy1890 (talk) 06:28, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral As much as I want to throw caution to the wind and join the chorus of supporters whom I trust, with a hearty "go team Sam", I see that we may be electing an increasing number of individuals who don't have the creation and preservation of content at the heart of their philosophy. I see that you have been perhaps unfairly criticised for matters relating to genuine attempts at content creation, but I share STTflyer's concern that the overall approach could use a lighter touch, not least at a time when we're concerned about retention of good editors on all fronts, some of whom, alas, start out clueless. I can see that you are going to pass, and I hope your tenure will be characterised by benevolence, humanity and mild-mannered use of technology. Good luck! Samsara 14:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
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/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Samtar&oldid=1143743348"