Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Samwalton9

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

Samwalton9

Final: (101/0/2) - Closed as successful by Acalamari at 16:17, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Co-nomination from Dennis Brown

I'm pleased to present Samwalton9 (talk · contribs) (Sam Walton) for your consideration. I've spent a couple of weeks digging around, and what I found is an editor with well over half his edits on articles, reasonable experience at AFD, enough experience at the admin boards to see how things works (but few enough to tell he isn't a drama lover), over 50 articles created and a fair amount of GAs and DYKs (see his user page), showing he knows why we are here. Essentially, a content focused editor that understands how we do things around here. I did see a post at Reddit, (One complained [1], another called it no big deal) that was perhaps a misguided attempt to bring in more eyes, but I didn't see malice in the attempt as much as a bad choice that happened a year ago. BTW, I didn't catch this, he admitted this up front, and hindsight being what it is, he gets it. I can overlook it, and I'm betting most of the rest of us can, too. We have an experienced editor with over 2 years regular editing, more than 8,000 edits and a very good mix of activities here, such that I think he would be a cautious but clueful admin that would be very helpful here. I've been dragging this review out over a few weeks due to real life activities and simple diligence, and Sam hasn't been bugging me to "hurry up", which is typically a good sign he isn't too eager, and I felt that was worth noting. Dennis - 2¢ 14:11, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Co-nomination from Anna Frodesiak

I am very happy to co-nominate Samwalton9. After a thorough review, I have found that he is smart, has a great demeanor, is civil and polite (which is hugely important to me), level-headed and thoughtful, and will make a fine admin. He has lots of mainspace work including GA experience, plus good AfD participation and judgement calls (which is also very important to me because admins delete things before others get a chance to see if it was the right call). He also has plenty of involvement in many other areas. Browsing through his talkpage, you will find him being helpful and giving meaningful advice. One single issue is the reddit post. I think over-enthusiasm prompted this lapse in judgement, but it was in good faith. I know he is still kicking himself over it. So, the bottom line, can he be trusted with the mop? An overwhelming YES. He will certainly not abuse the tools and will be a force for good. Eight thousand of his actions show that I can trust and support him. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:23, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you both for your nominations, I happily accept. Sam Walton (talk) 15:24, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

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 probably start in areas such as AfD, CSD and RPP where I feel confident with my current knowledge, starting with uncontroversial closes/deletions/protections. Having processed a few hundred requested accounts I could also see myself working at WP:UAA. I’m happy and enthusiastic to learn how to be useful in other admin areas, in particular those which are most backlogged, but wouldn't undertake any admin actions I wasn't yet comfortable in my understanding of. The admin tools would also help generally, such as in the help areas where users often ask about deleted pages or otherwise need an admin.

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

A: Most of my contributions here have been in content creation, with Proteus probably being the best article I’ve been a major contributor to, hopefully close to FA. I’m proud of most of the articles I've written or expanded (full list on my user page), but especially the articles I’ve written on scientists, in particular those on women scientists; a fairly under-represented topic. I also consider my time spent helping new editors at the Teahouse or on the IRC help channel to have been time well spent.

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 don’t think I’ve been in any dispute which has caused me any particular stress but this dispute at University of Liverpool is probably the closest I’ve come to a ‘conflict’, after some reverting and talk page messages I took the issue to WP:3O and the dispute was resolved. The only other dispute of interest I can think of is at The Principle where I and other editors have disagreed over content on multiple occasions. My first messages at The Principle were somewhat aggressive and reading back I shouldn't have discouraged someone so heavily from making an edit, that's definitely an exchange I've improved since. Having only been actively editing for 7 months I didn't fully understand this issue at the time, but have since understood why the Reddit post was a less than great idea, even if done in good faith. During debates on Wikipedia I always try to explain myself, and where necessary Wikipedia policies, as well as I can and am more than happy to concede where I realise I'm in the wrong.

Additional questions from John Cline

4. Why do you want to be an admin?

A: As much as I could happily continue doing content creation and non-admin work for as long as Wikipedia is around, there have been many times recently when having the admin tools would have helped me and others around Wikipedia. Whether that be a user joining the IRC help channel and wondering exactly what was wrong with their deleted article, a page I come across requiring speedy deletion, or a troll-invaded page needing protection, I feel that I could make good use of the admin tools for the betterment of the encyclopedia and its editors. Sam Walton (talk) 22:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

5. When did you realize that you wanted to become an admin?

A: I'm not sure I could say exactly but I guess it's been in the back of my head for a while through the sorts of situations I mentioned in Q4. I suppose I began to seriously see myself applying to be an admin a few months ago when there was talk of declining admin numbers and I started to think that I might be a suitable candidate. Sam Walton (talk) 22:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

6. When did you become confident in your ability to be an admin?

A: Around the time I first sent Dennis a message asking what he thought of my suitability. Sam Walton (talk) 22:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Additional question from FreeRangeFrog

7. You become aware of a situation where an IP with no prior contributions has repeatedly blanked the contents of a biography of a living person, and they have been reverted several times already by an inexperienced editor who doesn't know what to do other than to also keep reverting. Both are now over 3RR. The IP has three warnings in their talk page, and refuses to respond to questions about their behavior. They have not used summaries at all when blanking. You examine the contents of the article and see that it is largely unsourced, but does not contain any immediately apparent libelous, defamatory or otherwise problematic information. You are the one admin that needs to deal with this. What steps do you take to resolve the issue, and why?

A: Assuming that by blanking you mean blanking the entire page, I would start by blocking the IP for 24 hours due to their disruptive editing. I'd leave a detailed and hopefully informative message on their talk page explaining why blanking the article isn't the right way to go about fixing it and stating that they're welcome to help introduce reliably sourced information or discuss their issues on the talk page once their block has expired. Though WP:BLPEDIT advises against treating page blanking of BLPs as outright vandalism, this really only works if the editor is willing to engage in discussion to some degree. I would then post on the talk page of the inexperienced editor and offer advice as to where to report things like this in the future or links to venues like the Teahouse depending on their level of experience. Once that was taken care of I would then likely take a look at seeing if any of the unsourced content could be sourced or whether it should be removed. All that said, it's unlikely that in reality I would be the only admin available to deal with the situation, and so I would more likely ask for advice from another admin before proceeding with the above as I'm not yet extremely familiar with all areas of blocking policy with it being something I haven't needed to know well before now. Any blocking I do as a new admin would be clear cut cases until I felt confident in my ability. Sam Walton (talk) 22:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Additional question from Ritchie333

7a. I'm concerned about your above answer, and hopefully this question can put me at ease. Let's assume the situation is as above, but instead of an IP, one of the editors has 100,000 edits, many barnstars on their userpage, and you recognise their name from long, drawn out discussions at ANI. Assume also that only a portion of the article is blanked, rather than the whole page - again the content under dispute is not libellous or defamatory but is nevertheless unsourced. Would you do anything differently to above? If so, why?

A: I definitely wouldn't block the editor so readily if they were removing only a portion of the content, especially unsourced statements in a BLP. In this case I would leave the inexperienced editor a low level warning about edit warring and encourage both editors to stop reverting and to take their debate to the talk page. In this case I would also inform the inexperienced editor that starting a discussion at the talk page earlier would have been a good idea as it may have avoided the ensuing revert war, explaining that unsourced statements in BLPs are problematic and their removal isn't necessarily disruptive.

Additional question from Hawkeye7

8. You have an AfD about the flag of an alleged terrorist group. It is clear that both the flag and the group itself are disputed. One group of editors argues that the flag is depicted in reliable newspaper sources. The other argues that Wikipedia should not have articles on the flag of every group that happens to sew one up. Can you summarise the policies involved here?

A: If there have been multiple in depth reliable sources discussing different aspects of the flag, as we find in articles such as Flag of England, then there is some merit to the former group's argument. Content in the article could be proven to be true and it would be deemed a notable topic. If the coverage of the flag is more limited, or is usually found within discussions of the group, then the argument for deletion/merging/redirecting is stronger; notability is not inherited, and any source coverage of the flag should be used to write about it within the group's article. The argument that "Wikipedia should not have articles on the flag of every group that happens to sew one up" isn't entirely relevant; a subject's inclusion in the encyclopedia is based on their coverage in third party reliable sources, not whether it feels like a suitable topic.

Additional questions from Carrite.

11. Have you ever edited Wikipedia under any other registered account name or names? If so, what were these?

A. Yes. The only other account I've used is Samwalton9TWA (talk · contribs) which I created to test and give feedback on The Wikipedia Adventure from the perspective of a fresh account. I later used this account to also make one test edit to the account's sandbox in order to mark the page as patrolled from my main account; this was to check exactly which messages or emails new accounts receive when a page is patrolled so that I could make definite statements for a Village Pump proposal to clarify the messages.

12. How did you first become interested in Wikipedia? Why did you stay on and become a Wikipedian?

A. My first edits were changing tense in the article of a released game and other such small changes here and there for a few months. I then lost interest in editing for some time until I happened upon a link to an AfD in which I subsequently voted. This piqued my interest in editing once again, and shortly afterwards I found WikiProject Video Games, adding myself as a member, and started editing articles listed as needing improvement there. I really enjoyed contributing to such a great site, knowing that my contributions were helping people around the world learn about different topics, and it just went from there I guess.

13. If you could change one thing about Wikipedia, what would it be?

A. I'm not sure I can think of something specific, but it would almost definitely be within the area of the site's accessibility to new editors. Wiki markup isn't exactly wonderful at encouraging new editors (On this note I think Visual Editor is going to do a lot of good when it's finished), many of the help and documentation pages are either very dense or hard to find, and I think we could have a better live help feature. I think improvements in any of these areas would be a good thing that would help bring in new editors, a goal that is really important to the encyclopedia's future.

Additional questions from DGG.

14. Why did you decline this draft as "subject appears to be a non-notable person ",(I'm not saying it did not have other problems at the time which would have prevented accepting it) ?

A. I don't recall my exact thought process for this draft but I'll try to elaborate on what I assume my thought process was. The edit summary is somewhat misleading because I didn't necessarily think the subject was inherently not notable, rather that - as the full message says - the article didn't adequately prove notability. That probably being because the only three references in the article were not independent of the subject. Looking back on the draft though I think it's less clear cut than that because the subject is Vice-President and Chancellor of a university, satisfying WP:NPROF#6, which I may not have been familiar with at the time. Long story short, I think I was wrong to decline that draft for the reason I did, and should have spent more time evaluating the subject's notability. If those news articles which are now in the article had shown up it would have been enough for me to accept the article and tidy up the less than great promotional and/or unsourced parts.

Comment I take it you mean WP:NACADEMICS #6, and not WP:NPROF #6. FYI: The latter is about non-profit orgs, not about notability of professors. I would expect better research and more thorough checking of what they write from an admin candidate. Kraxler (talk) 13:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Oops, indeed. I even had WP:PROF open when I wrote that, just mis-wrote the redirect. Sam Walton (talk) 13:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

And FWIW, it was also a copyvio. I missed this also--I have since stubbified it. DGG ( talk ) 00:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

15. When you found that this draft was a duplicate of this article, containing at that point no information which was already in the mainspace article, why did you not list it for deletion? It has now been relisted two times more; what is appropriate at this point?

A. When I declined the article as a duplicate, Henry Dunay looked like this. The draft article focused on the brand whereas the article focused on the person, but the content was still quite similar, so I declined as duplication but wanted to encourage the user to add any extra material (of which there is some) into the main article. I probably could have encouraged the user to do so more explicitly, but I don't think listing the article for deletion would have been very encouraging for them. Since then I'm glad to see that the user has expanded the main article using their draft, and they are much more similar, meaning the draft could probably be deleted as duplication, though I'd want to check with the user that they don't want it moved to a user subpage instead.

Additional question from Ritchie333

16. You have mentioned you would like to work in WP:UAA. Could you look at these usernames and tell me what action you would take (if any) against each one:

• JimboMustDie
• xxxCoolGirl1234xxx
• douglascarswell
• JackWashington
• BringersOfDarkness
• JeffAtWidgetsIncorporated
• 34usdfgn4jk45grt___nnnguuyuuuyuyuyuyu233uu3

A:

• JimboMustDie: Immediate block as a clear personal attack.
• xxxCoolGirl1234xxx: I don't see anything wrong with this username and wouldn't take any action beyond welcoming the user if they had just joined.
• douglascarswell: Douglas Carswell is a real person. This editor's behaviour would need to be monitored; if they made claims to be this person then they would need to submit proof of being him through OTRS; a {{Uw-ublock-famous}} would be appropriate in this case. If they didn't edit that article or make such claims then I would just leave them a message suggesting they state they aren't him on their user page, per WP:REALNAME.
• JackWashington: No inherent problem, seems like a common enough name and Jack Washington is no longer alive so no credible claim could be made of being him.
• BringersOfDarkness: The issue I see with this name is that to me the plural 'bringers' implies shared use. As such I would leave the user a message asking them for clarification on the issue.
• JeffAtWidgetsIncorporated: This username is fine per WP:ISU, but I'd leave the user a few notes on WP:COI and declaration of paid editing.
• 34usdfgn4jk45grt___nnnguuyuuuyuyuyuyu233uu3: There's nothing inherently wrong about this username but it is discouraged. I would leave the editor a note suggesting they might want to change their name.

General comments

• Links for Samwalton9: Samwalton9 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Samwalton9 can be found here.
• I object to the wordings of Q9/Q10 - While a valid interrogation may be buried in there, the questions seem incredibly loaded and I am not sure they are conductive to an answer that would really help voters. They sound very vindicative to me. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:54, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• Agree completely and remind the candidate that answering questions like this is not obligatory at all. --Randykitty (talk) 03:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
• Agreed, I wouldn't answer that either. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 03:51, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

The way in which Q9 was phrased might look like it has a hidden agenda, but if you look at the editor's talk page and their contributions (this edit is definitely not vandalism in my view) then the underlying question is a fair one to ask. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:26, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

If I were running for admin and posed the same question, I might answer "If even one person feels abused because of the treatment they received, this is unfortunate. My main focus as admin would be to patrol the AFD pages but occasionally I will look out for abusive cases. If so, I will try to be compassionate and fair to all parties." However, I see that this candidate has refused to answer. This is starting to look bad to me. Eating Glass Is Bad (talk) 21:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

There are many types of Loaded questions, these are fine examples. Kind of like "When did you stop beating your wife?". Dennis - 2¢ 21:42, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment of the two questions being loaded. Question 9 asks what he would do if he sees another admin being bad, not if he is bad. You could ask that of a police academy student "if you saw a police officer executing a driver with an expired parking meter, what would you do?". Eating Glass Is Bad (talk) 22:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

A bad answer to that would be to get mad and start shooting everyone in the room. A better answer would be to say that "I have had moments of anger, even to the point of shouting, even excessive shouting, but never have I struck my wife". Confession is difficult but all admins should have transparency and openness. Eating Glass Is Bad (talk) 22:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Q 9/10 removed per Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#irrelevant NE Ent 23:24, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I have added a different question on what I think is the same underlying principle, but without any agenda. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• Now we have another iffy question from Eating Glass Is Bad. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 17:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

  Actually, that's not a terrible question -- I've avoided voting in this RFA in part because of my feelings about Wal-Mart. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Not terrible, but only posted after the user's oppose vote which is terrible. Just to note, Sam already answered the username question on his talk page. Ivanvector (talk) 17:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

---

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

Discussion

Support

1. Support. Frankly, the weight of a nomination from Dennis Brown is enough for me to support on its own. The Reddit thing was really not okay, but it was a year ago and Sam has acknowledged the grave error in judgement. Admins who can admit to their mistakes are not at all a bad thing. Sam is a very well-rounded candidate and I have no doubt the project will benefit from him having the mop. A hearty thumbs-up from me. Ivanvector (talk) 15:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support as nominator Dennis - 2¢ 16:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Support. I don't see why not. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 16:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Support - over 50% of contributions in mainspace, numerous DYKs (which are getting increasingly harder to clear), and lots of experience in answering new user questions at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions and additional ideas of how to improve the Live Help system. This gives me confidence that he will approach outside views and conflict with patience and diligence. Exactly the sort of person we need. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
5. Support. Nominated by Anna and Dennis? That's a no-brainer to me. --Randykitty (talk) 16:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
6. Support No issues. Jianhui67 ^T★C 16:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
7. Support Looks good to me based on edit balance, contribution history and a sensible approach to communication. Posting on Reddit in the percieved best interests of Wikipedia, although perhaps a little misguided, is not a hanging offence in my book—it was clearly an attempt to improve the article with no sinister overtones. Tip 'o the hat to the noms. Good luck Sam! Philg88 ^♦talk 17:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
8. Support No concerns. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 17:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
9. Support Thanks for volunteering. benmoore 17:19, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
10. Support Lesser Cartographies (talk) 17:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
11. Support Have to agree with what Dennis and Anna write. Quite a credible candidate. My support... Wifione ^Message 17:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
12. Support Overall a good candidate. I'm not particularly concerned with the Reddit post since the user did out of enthusiasm, not malice, and has learned from the experience. All in all a good content creator who I have no problem giving the mop to. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 18:19, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
13. Support. A few years ago I would have spent more time digging around in your history ... but we really need deletion and page-protection admins. No one is raising any red flags so far, and I trust both nominators. - Dank (push to talk) 18:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
14. Support; I've worked with Sam before and I've always walked away with positive impressions. Everything I've seen leads me to believe that he would be a good admin, and wouldn't abuse the tools. The Reddit post from a year ago is nothing; everybody makes mistakes and we all learn from them. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:57, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
15. Support sane guy, trust both nominators. Secret ^account 19:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
16. Support Although I trust both Anna and Dennis I thought I should look at this editor's work before deciding. I have and it's excellent. Will be a great admin. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 19:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
17. Support. I'm vaguely familiar with the nominee's work, and from what I recall, I did not see any red flags that would cause me to oppose them being an administrator. Steel1943 (talk) 19:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
18. Support A fine candidate sure to make a fine admin. Chillum 19:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
19. Support Diligent, courteous, level-headed. FireflySixtySeven (talk) 20:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
20. Support I notice that he started an article which I independently edited recently — Sunday Assembly. It's good to have a candidate that can create an article like that from scratch. Andrew D. (talk) 20:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
21. Support. I don't see any problems with this candidate. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
22. Support. no concerns HalfGig talk 20:46, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
23. Support - Well it's nice to see one RFA going smoothly! :) - Great candidate, No issues!, Good luck :) –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:23, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
24. Support Looks like a solid and well rounded candidate. A cursory glance at the stats checks all the boxes on my "what I look for" list. Normally I would do a little random digging into Sam's edit history, but honestly with Dennis Brown as a co-nominator I'm pretty sure that I'd be wasting my time. Good luck! -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
25. Support - I've seen Sam around the Video Game WikiProject a couple of times. Even reviewed one of his articles at GAN. I think he can preform well with the tools in hand. GamerPro64 23:11, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
26. Thought he was already a sysop --L235-Talk Ping when replying 23:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
27. Yes, please. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:46, 21 November 2014 (UTC) Addendum: I'm not really happy with Q7/7A, but "so I would more likely ask for advice from another admin before proceeding with the above" completely saves it for me. Knowing when you're not really sure of something and calling in help is a much more important quality than being right more often, while not recognizing (or admitting to) the cases you might be wrong. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
28. Support No concerns about him being an admin. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 00:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
29. It's about time... [stwalkerster|talk] 01:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
30. I've seen this editor around quite a bit recently. At first I actually mistook him for another administrator — Sam (formerly "SamuelWantman"), to be more specific. I quickly checked to see if it was the same person, and made a mental note of the difference between Sam Wantman and Sam Walton. But I digress, the candidate has demonstrated excellent communication skills and a strong commitment to the project. Sam will make a good administrator. Kurtis ^(talk) 01:18, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
31. Support as co-nominator. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
32. Support. Nominations and comments by Dennis - 2¢ and Anna Frodesiak (talk) are strong and a big plus. Nothing negative has turned up and I see no problems. The Reddit post obviously was intended to gather information and contributions for the Bitcoin article and does not seem biased in any way. I think the candidate had the best of intentions and almost certainly would not have even thought about the post being canvassing. Regardless, a single well-intentioned post, even if technically a mistake, is no reason to oppose. Donner60 (talk) 02:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
33. I don't think the candidate has ever really thrown themselves in the deep end on this website. I don't mean to denigrate the candidate at all by saying the following: it's not hard to rack up a clear RfA pass if the primary focus of your article editing is video games and you don't engage in genuinely contentious areas. Proof of my point is the University of Liverpool answer to Q3, which outlines a very minor dispute. It follows that the candidate's lack of testing in the edgier side of Wikipedia gives me reason to pause, whereas for others above, that lack of testing might be one of the reasons (unrecognised) that they "see no problems". However, while it gives me reason to pause, it doesn't give me reason not to support. The candidate has said he will work in AfD, CSD and RPP. I'm sure he'll do very well there, based on the contribution reviews I've conducted, and I'm also sure that he's not going go suddenly dive into AE, AN3 or whatever and go feral. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
34. Support No reservations about it - great editor who will put the tools to good use. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
35. Support - per the strong co-nominations, history of editing contributions, and thoughtful answers to questions here. I thank the candidate for his willingness to serve Wikipedia as an administrator and wish him the best.—John Cline (talk) 04:18, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
36. ///EuroCarGT 04:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
37. Support No concerns. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:43, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
38. Support Everything's looking good to me. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 07:17, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
39. Support seems like a well qualified candidate. Strikes me as cool-headed and helpful. Good content work and sufficiently solid understanding of policy makes me happy to support at an early stage. Even though there is an outstanding answer to a question, the original answer to Q7 strikes me as perfectly sensible. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 09:15, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
40. Support Nice nomination Dennis. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
41. Support Sounds perfect — BranStark (talk) 13:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
42. Support based on the consensus of the community and the user's extreme commitment to clearing the Afd backlog. StewdioMACK (talk) 14:26, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
43. Nice one. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
44. Support - Helpful user, would be a great addition to the admin team. I don't see any reason to oppose, and it seems like no-one else does either. Good luck, and I hope this RFA suceeds! Regards, George.Edward.C – Talk – Contributions 16:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
45. Support - I'm very glad to see two WP:VG regulars and amazing content creators are at RfA -- we need admins who are well-versed in article improvement (unlike more janitor-like admins such as me), and Sam definitely fits the bill. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
46. Support – No concerns. EdJohnston (talk) 19:15, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
47. Happily Support - Experienced Editor! Would like to see him as an Admin! - Kunalrks (talk), 07:22, 22^nd November, 2014 (UTC).
48. Support after a review of contributions. I believe granting this user mop access will benefit the project and the encyclopedia. --j⚛e decker^talk 19:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
49. Support – Likely to be a helpful admin, from what I can tell. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:56, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
50. Support per the two strong nominations. I'm also happy to see a nominee who has created several articles and made some attempts at GA and FA promotion (good luck with Proteus (video game). - tucoxn\^talk 20:36, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
51. Support - puts effort into AFD, puts effort into content, puts effort into explaining his reasoning. Good editor that I trust not to take any rash actions. - Taketa (talk) 21:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
52. Support No evidence they will abuse the tools or position.--MONGO 21:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
53. Support, puts quite some effort into helping others and shows good judgement. Huon (talk) 21:26, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
54. Support, based on review. Kierzek (talk) 22:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
55. Support clueful candidate who will be a net positive. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 23:26, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
56. Support why not? --Guerillero | My Talk 23:28, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

    Support withdrawn. See neutral column for explanation..Sorry This can be changed back to support later. Original comments:Support seems like a good candidate but reserve the right to change my mind (probably won't) before the RFA ends. Eating Glass Is Bad (talk) 00:20, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

57. Support. Anyone who contributes to WikiProject VG or AfD will have had positive experiences with this candidate. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
58. Support - not as good as Samwalton7 or Samwalton8 but an awesome guy who promised to give wikipedia free stuff from his company, Walmart if he wins ..--Stemoc 04:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
59. Support - While learning about the candidate, I saw a content creator who is active in many area. I'm willing to say experienced despite the lower than usual number of edits. A quick look at the user's talk page discussions shows the candidate is friendly and helpful to inexperienced users, gives simple and easy to understand explanations for their actions, and seems to honestly consider the opinions of others. If the Reddit thing is the biggest spot on record, that's not too shabby. I also like that in Q7 the candidate notes that they prefer to consult another admin and that they prefer to learn policy comfortably before diving into a new area. This shows to me the type of caution in candidates that prevents future troubles. I'll continue to look around over the next for days but I'm convinced the editor is trustworthy and that would make a great admin. Jason Quinn (talk) 10:57, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

    Nicely put, my friend. Nicely put. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

60. Support Why they get my support should be evident all over this page. Couldn't improve on it or put it in a nutshell. Will certainly be a great asset to Wikipedia. Also thanks to the noms for supporting / locating such a fine candidate. Best. OrangesRyellow (talk) 13:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
61. Support -Yes, please. Have seen him around doing good work. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 14:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
62. Support - can learn on the job - should be net pos Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
63. Support This editor meets my RFA standards and I have yet to see anything that would cause me to oppose. Mkdw^talk 21:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
64. Support: Shows clue, good noms, content creator to boot. No concerns. Thanks and good luck! BethNaught (talk) 22:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
65. Stephen 00:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
66. Support Why not, no big deal, net positive, y'know... all that stuff. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:38, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
67. Support - Clean block log, no indications of assholery, sufficient tenure, and a Dennis Brown nomination. That should suffice. Carrite (talk) 04:06, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
68. Support --No concerns here..--The herald 12:21, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
69. Support Can't see any issues. I'm glad that he contributed heavily to taking an article I started and taking it to GA (although that was the first I knew of it!). The Reddit post about Bitcoin is fine IMHO: though I'm wary about inviting hordes of POV warriors into articles, I don't see anything wrong with attempting to reach out to groups of people who are knowledgable about a subject and using them as a resource for finding reliable sources and suggestions to improve articles—in fact, it is something we should try to do more often rather than less. Candidate seems relatively clueful, productive and unlikely to do anything too stupid. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:40, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
70. Support - Sam has lighter AfD and other deletion experience than I usually like to see in an RfA candidate, but his other work, demeanor, and demonstrated policy knowledge looks pretty solid. Thumb's up. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
71. Support Sure. Eurodyne (talk) 17:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
72. Support Rzuwig^► 21:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
73. Support. Fully qualified candidate (who should, and I expect will, take into account the feedback on his answers). Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
74. Support - lots of experience over a range of areas, quite helpful and pleasant conversationalist. As an editor who doesn't go looking for trouble, it's good to see there isn't much of it finding him. Looks good! "Pepper" @ 00:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
75. Support An excellent candidate. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
76. Support. — sparklism ^hey! 05:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
77. Support – Great candidate who is experienced and a net positive to the project. No issues or concerns. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
78. Support Per noms and a clear net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
79. Support Happy to support Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} ^(Whisper...) 17:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
80. Support per noms with zero concerns. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 19:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
81. Support - I've seen him around WP:VG, and never noticed any bad traits. Sergecross73 msg me 20:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
82. Support - Everything looks good to me, and the answers to the questions have been satisfactory. Inks.LWC (talk) 07:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
83. Support I don't see any reason that he shouldn't be a admin. Wikipedian 2 (talk) 09:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
84. Support - Great contributions. Faizan 13:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
85. Support – Great candidate as corroborated by his contributions; clean block log and concise answers to questions. Good luck Sam! —MelbourneStar☆^talk 14:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
86. Support, entirely per nom. LHM^{ask me a question} 17:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
87. Support. Qualified candidate. I don't see any real relevence in the claims made in the neutral section regarding Q7 & 8.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
88. Support - Great candidate and everything looks good to me! StevenD99 21:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
89. Support No problems found, good luck with the mop! --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 22:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
90. Support st170e^talk 22:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
91. Support Found nothing but reasons to support after digging through old contribs and talk pages. Confident Sam will be an excellent janitor. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 00:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
92. Support - No qualms here, someone order a mop ! Mlpearc (open channel) 01:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
93. Don't see any problems here, good luck. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 05:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
94. Supprt Look forward to working with you :) — MusikAnimal ^talk 07:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
95. Support. Looks like a level-headed candidate with strong nominations. I trust him to take it slow at the beginning, as he has said he would, and as he should. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:51, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
96. Support Great contributor with good rationale for using the bit, demonstrates competence and maturity. Review of activity reveals no significant concerns. -- Scray (talk) 20:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
97. Support No problems. —Frosty ☃ 00:24, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
98. Support No concerns. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
99. Support A level-headed editor, I think, and with a pretty clear idea of how he would use the tools... maybe not much experience with on-wiki drama, but adminship does not need to be a soap opera. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
100. Support Seems like a reasonable, well balanced contributor. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 13:48, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
101. Support. As far as I can see, Sam breezes through my criteria. —Biblioworm 15:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I'm not going to oppose a content creator, because content creators need the tools. But your answers to Questions 7 and 8 leave a great deal to be desired. I strongly urge that you not employ the block button until you have the nuances of Question 7 worked out. (And two thumbs up on Question 8, but don't close any AfDs before you work it out.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Neutral, with rationale As Hawkeye7 says above, I too have some reservations about your answers to Q7 and 8. Your use of the term "disruptive editing" concerns me, as the question was really intended to measure how well you would react in a situation that possibly involves BLP concerns that requires a softer touch. Not that the block would be uncalled for, but it's the assumption behind it that counts in this case. However, your RFA is definitely going to pass, and I'm fine with that. You are an excellent candidate and content creator, and I believe you will be a valuable addition to the admin corps. But I'm going neutral just to call this to your attention. I hope that if you ever find yourself in such a situation you'll consider more than just the apparent disruption, or seek help from an admin with more experience handling serious BLP issues, and keep in mind that sometimes it pays to point people to OTRS. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:31, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

   That's a bogus criticism given FRF specifically stipulated in the question You are the one admin that needs to deal with this. NE Ent 00:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

   Well that's true, but my point was that he is the one that has to immediately deal with the problem. It doesn't mean he has to follow through to completion. There's nothing wrong with asking for help and punting a problem, especially in those types of touchy situations. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.