Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Seddon

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

Seddon

Final (83/1/1); Originally scheduled to end 22:10, 30 November, 2008 (UTC).
Nomination successful. --Deskana (talk) 20:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC).
Seddon (talk · message · contribs · count · logs · email).

---

Co-nomination from AGK.

Seddon is a contributor of 2 years' and 4000+ edits' experience. I have had, through WikiVoices (neé NotTheWikipediaWeekly), the pleasure of interacting with Seddon, and he has persistently impressed me there with his enthusiasm for the Wiki model, foresight, and judgement; in my view, this RfA is long overdue. He is committed to the English Wikipedia, both through his editorial contributions (7 featured credits, one Good article) and his Mediation abilities.

The former requires little analysis: Seddon is here to stay, and has an eclectic knowledge of the encyclopedia's procedures and operations. I have brushed him up on Administrator-related matters via some off-Wiki, informal "sysop coaching," for all that was needed; his responses to the standard RfA questions should enlighten those curious as to how Seddon intends to put him tools to use. The latter point perhaps best highlights Seddon's suitability for the Administrator tools. As an elected member of the Mediation Committee, Seddon is active on the (private) mailing list—there, he is a competent voice, especially on "unusual" and non-routine matters. As a Mediation Cabal member (he now actively mediates for the MedCom rather than as the MedCab) he equally impresses—indeed, he was recently selected as a co-ordinator to replace (the sadly outgoing) Vassyana.

I am unsure how to further articulate or exemplify Seddon's suitability for the +sysop bit, but I feel confident he will impress all contributors to this RfA discussion equally as much as he did me. Please also consider Durova's thoughts, below, and Seddon's contributions and question responses in conjunction with these thoughts.

Best of luck, Seddon. AGK 18:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Co-nomination from Durova.

AGK is a hard act to follow. He puts it well: Seddon has done heavy lifting in article space and if there's a born mediator on the project, Seddon's it. In relation to his dispute resolution work it makes sense for him to have the tools for page protections. He's also done his share of anti-vandalism and I fully trust him to use the tools wisely there. Overall a very strong candidate, one I've collaborated with closely for months via WikiVoices, and it's an honor to join AGK in nominating for moppitude. Durova^Charge! 01:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I gratefully accept these nominations from AGK and Durova. Seddσn ^{talk Editor Review} 22:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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

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

A: The main admin areas I plan to be using the tools in will be Page protection and WP:AIV. The first is linked to both my experiences in dispute resolution, and also through anti-vandalism, and I feel like I have good understanding of when protections are suitable in both situations. The latter is related to my activities with anti-vandalism, which I have had the rollback tool since January 10 this year and I have continued with my anti-vandalism activities throughout my time at Wikipedia. In the future I intend to expand the scope of my contributions, but for the time being, I will chose to work in these routine areas only.

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

A: My interest in full time editing at the project came from my interests in hurricanes and that has been where my main skills as an editor have grown. Although not being a natural article editor, I have had success in the article space, particularly in managing to get 1988 Atlantic hurricane season to Featured Article status. The article that I have put the most work into and one which I am most pleased with is Hurricane Henriette (2007). The article has been somewhat of a long term project for me since I started full time editing and over a period of 8 months I constantly added and removed things from the article, to bring it from no more than a few sentences and templates, to a complete and informative good article.

The other area I feel I have contributed well to is the area of dispute resolution. Since January 2008 I have been mediating cases with the Mediation Cabal, both directly mediating cases and working with other mediators in working on solutions and providing advice. In March 2008 I also took on a case for the Mediation Committee which was a test of my mediation skills given the subject and also the difficulty in trying to bring all parties to the table at the same time, however after four months of work an agreement was finally reached. Following the closing of the case I was elected as a member of the the Mediation Committee and recently I was asked to be the new coordinator for the Mediation Cabal.

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: Being a mediator means I have been involved greatly in various disputes from the dispute resolution side of things but I suppose the best example of an instance where I was put under greatest stress was when I was accused of being sock puppeteer back in April. It was very difficult to remain calm and to keep a clear head in this situation given the frustration of being wrongly accused, the worry about any long term damage to my reputation and the possibilty of loosing trust with people as a mediator. I kept in communication with the filer of the sock puppet case as much as possible and saught advice from other people to try and clear my name. Eventually, I was cleared of sock puppetry following an suspected sock puppet case and checkuser request, and since then, I have received an email from the filer apologising for the accusation.

The way I handled this is often the best to do in any difficult situation whether it be a dispute or a decision to make and in my opinion one of the most important things to do on wiki. Talking and discussing with my peers, whether other administrators, editors or mediators, ensures good communication and cuts down any chances of misunderstanding or conflict.

Additional questions from Deacon of Pndapetzim

4. How would you contradict the assertion that WP:3RR and WP:Edit warring promote editorial quantity over quality and encourage off-wiki co-ordination?

A:

5. Does WP:Consensus mean that truth on wikipedia is purely social?

A: Given the nature by which wikipedia is supposed to be founded upon (NPOV, Reliability, and Verifability) the Truth^TM wikipedia puts forward should theoretically be free from skew or bias, however this is not the case. Wikipedia is governed by two major factors. Firstly those related to social aspects as you meantion but also the ease of aquisition of knowledge. The most readily avaible information in the world is skewed towards More Economically Developed Countries and specifically for the English Wikipedia is more readily available from English speaking countries. This can result in a "western" viewpoint in many areas.

Truth is derived largely from our sources, but we decide what to interpret from the sources—and indeed, which sources to base our articles on—through a community-based consensus model. The results of interpretation and consensus at two levels, with varying degree inbetween. The first is that on small, less visible article with perhaps maybe only one or two editors, the content is affected by the editors weighting and sourcing of information. The article could undergo major changes in content as editors come and go, but with long periods of stability with little or no edits. The skill of an editor to be able to write in a NPOV and ensure sources are reliable and verifiable has great affect in leaning of an article.

In more popular and often larger articles, more editors tend to be responsible for the content. In these areas, consensus is what is strived for. The consensus model on wikipedia does mean that the Truth^TM is in some aspect social but also dynamic. With a large throughput these articles are always in a constant state of flux. In an ideal situation, consensus should achieve NPOV but this requires an editor base from all backgrounds. Where the editor base is not so diverse and is from a narrower area of the community, NPOV could well be sacrificed for the expense of consensus. Whilst the consensus model means our articles can be skewed away from being neutral by the pushing of POV, in the vast majority of cases it works in our favour—only sensible sources are used.

6. In what areas of Wikipedia are social connections most necessary for carrying out administrative and editorial work effectively?

A:

Query: What do you mean by "social connections," Deacon? AGK 17:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Number of friends (wiki, email, irc, whatever), personal influence, amount of good will generated towards you (v. bad), and all those things. Social strength might be have been a better way of getting at my intended meaning. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

7. Explain why this edit is or is not a violation of WP:BLP

A: After reviewing the diff as a whole, I would say that this is a violation of the BLP policy based on several key things. Firstly, it is important to remember that even though the edit was made in the talk space, WP:BLP is still applicable, as it is to all spaces in the project. Secondly the comment made is clearly defamatory, specifically making an accusation about an editor. Finally the source given, links to a blog which is not considered a reliable source and so given these types sources are not useful in creating articles, especially BLP articles, and therefore should be removed.

Additional question from User:Pohta ce-am pohtit

8. Should a mentally ill person (who is clearly identified as such by multiple references in the mainstream press) be allowed to post GFDL-licensed pictures of himself on Wikipedia, when said pictures are found bizarre by other editors, eliciting comments like "dear God" and "batshit crazy"? Somewhat open-ended. Feel free to elaborate.Pcap ping 16:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

A: Personally I would like more details to answer in any detail. As a generic answer covering a variety of situations, several issues must be looked at. The content of the photo could be wide ranging, I'm sure many people would say Image:Dingyjump.jpg wasnt exactly run of the mill. It should be looked at to see if there are possible BLP issues. It is important to remember that mental illnesses can manifest themsleves in many ways, and the person could well be fully capable of making decisions about themselves at the time. I, however, am no expert and so I cannot pass judgement on those issues and so following the advice set out in the BLP policy, the best course of action when in doubt is to delete the image and following that to report the deletion to WP:AN so that the admin and editor community can be informed and for discussion to occur.

Finally where the image is hosted can affect how to deal with the image. Most GFDL and Creative Commons licensed images are hosted at Commons, and so if it this was the case and there was a serious issue with these files, it would be important to refer the issue to the admins there.

Additional question from User:Sumoeagle179

9. You are heavinly involved with WikiVoices. What problems does that have and how do you plan to solve them?

A:

General comments

• Links: Seddon (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi).
• Mediation Committee nomination: Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Nominations/Seddon.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Seddon—and the nomination statement(s)—before commenting.

Discussion

Support

1. Strongly. Per the rationale in my nomination statement. AGK 17:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
2. Unconventional 'top of the list' support :-) Privatemusings (talk) 02:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)feel free to refactor anywhere else you fancy, I'm just wryly amused that I accidentally beat the nominators before! (and I've been hoping to use 'wryly' in a post for ages) :-)
3. Strong support. I've seen this guy around and I can think of view more appropriate to be given the tools than him. Has clue, will travel. Ironholds (talk) 22:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
4. Strong support — Seddon started out around the same time I began editing, and even then he helped me as a newbie in several ways. Seddon is a helpful user and, despite his fairly low edit count, is a dedicated and clueful Wikipedian. His dispute resolution efforts are excellent, as are his contributions to Hurricane Henriette (2007) and his featured pictures. Even so, if I had one suggestion, it would be to use edit summaries more often, but that's no big deal. Good luck, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
5. Support per AGK. Jehochman ^Talk 22:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
6. Strongest support I've ever given Xavexgoem (talk) 22:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
7. Support as conom. Durova^Charge! 22:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
8. Support. Great editor. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
9. Support - User has a clue, no problems noted so far. Large net positive, it would seem. — neuro^(talk) 22:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
10. Support. Definitely. Malinaccier (talk) 22:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
11. Strong support Excellent contributor! – How do you turn this on (talk) 22:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
12. Support But of course! FlyingToaster 23:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
13. Support - I've had the pleasure of working with Seddon quite a bit and I've found him to be a fantastic user. If he's ever unsure, he asks - that's important in an aspiring admin. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
14. Support - Pretty good editor with good contributions. JoshuaKuo (talk) 23:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
15. Never could say no support - Seddon is a great friend of mine, and I have had the same interactions mainly as AGK, the nominator had. I can't say no to supporting such a strong-willed editor and mediator.Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)} 23:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
16. Support. Fully qualified candidate; I see no concerns. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
17. Support no brainer in my mind. Experience as an article builder, a mediator, a vandal fighter, project space experience including AfD, RfA, arbitration, Featured Content processes, past involvement in WikiProjects. He's got so much experience that, unlike most RfA candidates, he can tell you what it feels to be wrongfully accused of sockpuppetry or to be blocked by your incompetent friend and would-be RfA nominator. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 23:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

    Let's avoid personal attacks, please. There is no need to call AGK "incompetent". –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

    I'm fairly certain that was an "accident" ;-) Xavexgoem (talk) 00:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

    Lighten up, guys, it was obviously meant as a joke. Whilst I do think it could have been phrased better, or not said at all... well, NPA is a bit over the top. — neuro^(talk) 00:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

    Err, I guess I'm not good with identifying sarcasm. Apologies, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

    I suppose a bit of background may be worthwhile here, for the record. I was investigating an SSP matter at the request of Seddon (long before we regularly interacted, actually), and in evaluating a report at Wikipedia:SSP, I—as is standard for my method of tackling such reports—opened up all block utility tabs for accounts on the page. (For quickness, I use the 'block user' function to investigate an editor's block log, as opposed to opening up their block log, which is not directly link in my Monobook toolbox.) In my hurrying through the tabs, the "block" button was (somehow) pressed—no details were filled in, hence the lack of expiry time and of block log entry. No harm done: simply an accidental block that was immediately lifted when I noticed the "block successful" screen. I would call that a slip-up worthy of the most careful administrator, and probably not grounds for incompetence, Pascal (if your comment was indeed not intended sarcastically—on this note, I remain unsure). Hope this clears things up. AGK 16:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

    How can anyone see this as anything but a harmless joke? It's not even sarcasm, it's me pointing out something funny. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 20:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

18. Well rounded, good contribs. Excellent mediator ;) —Ceran ♦ (talk) 23:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
19. Support. Piling on (though surely not needed here). Seddon is an exceptional nominee whose intended applications of the tools will be very welcome. — Athaenara ✉ 00:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
20. Support Looks good. Sam ^Blab 00:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
21. Support, of course. PhilKnight (talk) 00:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
22. Support — editor is very well–balanced in nearly every aspect of Wikipedia, from looking at the contribs. I think user would do fine with the tools. MuZemike (talk) 01:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
23. Experienced mediator, civil, and productive. Deserves the tools. No red flags as far as I can see. Master&Expert (Talk) 01:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
24. Duh - //roux   01:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
25. Support I TOLD HIM TO CANVASS ME AND HE DIDN'T MBisanz ^talk 02:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
26. Weak support. Only 1 notable disagreement in a discussion, so I cannot really justify a neutral or oppose. On the reverse, the candidate has contributed to featured articles and even featured pictures and sounds! Also, the indefinite block the candidate had was accidental and quickly reversed and thus should not be held against the candidate. Candidate seems reasonably successful at mediation too. Finally, candidate is co-nominated by Durova, whom I tend to get along and work with per User talk:Durova#Collaborative projects.21. So, good luck. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
27. Support - Easy decision. — Realist² 03:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
28. Durova co-nomed him? You've got my support then. RockManQ ^(talk) 03:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
29. Support. I don't see any concerns here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
30. Support. big net positive. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
31. Support, wryly (per Privatemusings) - Richard Cavell (talk) 06:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
32. Support, although I'm now tempted to canvass MBisanz on user's behalf. Cool Hand Luke 06:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
33. Support - I genuinely believed Seddon was already an administrator - indeed, when I saw his name at RFA, I assumed it was some sort of reconfirmation RfA thingy. Nick (talk) 08:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
34. Support Yes. PeterSymonds (talk) 09:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
35. Support no problems that I see. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
36. Support: You weren't? Damn. seicer | talk | contribs 15:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
37. Support: Of course! The Helpful One 17:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
38. Support Yep, looks good and I've had positive encounters with this user. --Kanonkas :  Talk  19:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
39. Support Everything is fine. America69 (talk) 19:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
40. Massively mega over-the-top really pretentious great (MMORPG) support: Everything I have to say has already been said - I thought you were already an administrator, and you certainly deserve to be. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 19:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
41. Support – Seems like a fine candidate for adminship. No serious problems here. – RyanCross (talk) 01:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
42. Support. I am familair with Seddon due to his participation in dispute resolution, particularly at MedCab and MedCom. His mediation skills and familiarity with Wikipedia are such that I invited him to become a MedCab coordinator. The oppose is unconvincing to me. His work in dispute resolution makes it very clear that he understands some of the most contentious varieties of mainspace editing and his work in featured content makes it clear that he understands our quality standards. Vassyana (talk) 02:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
43. Support Very nice editor with good experience. Leujohn ^(talk)
44. Certainly. Seddon seems well-rounded and clueful. Both are great in sysops. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
45. Seems fine. Stifle (talk) 11:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
46. Support abf /talk to me/ 14:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
47. Yep. LittleMountain5 17:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
48. Net Positive and then some. A particularly tactful and thoughtful editor. Pedro :  Chat  21:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
49. Support Well-rounded and collected.--Koji† 22:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
50. Support Based on his contributions and thoughtful answers to the rhetorical questions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
51. Oh hell yes. User has been extremely helpful to me in the past, and I have nothing but praise for this user. It's about time he got the buttons. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 23:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
52. Support. macy 02:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
53. Support Definitely trustworthy. Steven Walling (talk) 02:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
54. Support I have very little familiarity with this editor aside from seeing his name a few times in passing. However, his edit history doesn't give me any cause for alarm and I have yet to see AGK throw his support behind someone frivolously. Trusilver 02:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
55. Support - He has only 1495 article space edits, but he has contributed to a featured article. AdjustShift (talk) 04:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
56. Support. Good featured article that one too. Seems great to me. Good Luck! Andy (talk) 07:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
57. Support - Good contributor with a solid understanding of the dispute resolution process. --Flewis^(talk) 11:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
58. Hi, I need to file a noise complaint - I'm the lion in the jungle (the mighty jungle) and I was trying to sleep tonight when some fool was chanting "O Wimboweh, O Wimboweh" and woke me up...oh, wrong queue. But while I am here: Support for a wonderfully active candidate (so active that you couldn't possibly call him Seddon-tary!). Ecoleetage (talk) 14:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
59. Support. Not a massive number of mainspace edits, but reliable and trustworthy. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
60. Weak support - technically meets my standards, but I'd like a more varied picture. Bearian (talk) 18:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
61. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
62. Support. Seems trustworthy. DiverseMentality 23:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
63. Support. He'd be a great person with the tools. I've known him on-wiki for a while, and nothing I've seen so far suggests he would not be fit to have the tools. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
64. Support Have a mop! Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 02:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
65. Support. Good candidate. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
66. Strong support - helpful, thoughtful and bright. Will make an excellent admin. fish&karate 09:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
67. Support - well-rounded, active candidate, with good contributions and abundant evidence that he will use the tools constructively. Has also made some useful contributions towards setting up the new Wikimedia UK chapter. Warofdreams talk 14:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
68. Support per nom. I'm wholly satisfied with the thoughtful answers above and his contributions, especially, MED activities. He has been trusted as a member of the committee and I believe he would be an excellent sysop for people who needs neutral and calm third opinion. When he faced a very difficult situation[1], he was very calm and behaved good. That is also impressive.--Caspian blue 15:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
69. Support I looked hard at this candidate after the oppose, however the good amount of featured and good articles and other contributions have helped alleviate any fears. Good article building overall, and the edit count does not bother me when it is done in a constructive way. Trustworthy as well. --Banime (talk) 17:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
70. Support - An Anthony nomination and a good experience with the candidate is enough to entrust a support vote. Good luck with your future! Caulde 19:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
71. Clueful. —Animum (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
72. For great justice and epic lulz. Synergy 22:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
73. Support, based on my experience with him he'll be an asset as an admin. Wizardman 05:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
74. Weak Support: Another hurricane fan, hah? Weak in mainspace per my expectations but still willing to support as a Netpositive candidate ! Did anybody say November is the best month for successful RFAs ? -- Tinu Cherian - 10:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
75. Very Strong support - I don't understand the comments that the mainspace edits are weak. When did we start requiring over 1000 mainspace edits for adminship? Although no or very few mainspace edits with many project space edits can be questionable, it's projectspace edits that are most important for admins to exhibit and far to many candidates are weak in that area. I am amazed that Seddon is not an admin already. Although I don't find mediation to be a particularly important part of adminship (though I too do both - but not to the level of Seddon), it is very very rare for MedCom to pick up a non-admin, some members of medcom believing adminship to be a condition precedent to membership on medcom due to the demonstration of trust. This user is extremely trusted and trusworthy and we don't have to worry about Seddon abusing the mop.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
76. Strong support. Seddon has been a member of MedCom for a while, which is a significant show of trust, as Doug indicates. Also, as a member of WikiProject Tropical cyclones, I can vouch for the quality of the work done by Seddon. Interactions with him have led me to believe that he is not a power-hungry editor, and that he has a very thorough grasp of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Overall, he has a clue, and I have no reservations granting him the mop and the flamethrower. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
77. Support. Seems a reasonable fellow with enough experience. Pcap ping 08:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
78. Support This user has, as of now, 4349 edits with good contribution levels across the various aspects of the encyclopedia. This is plenty, and comments below relating to amount of artcle-space content alone are without relevance. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 15:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
79. Support: Seddon has a strong track record of service to the WP community and is well-qualified to wield the mop. Sunray (talk) 18:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
80. Support Yanksox (talk) 05:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
81. Support, in terms of edits, quality counts over quantity, and there's every bit of that here. Keeps cool, helps defuse tough situations, will do a great job. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

    Perfect. Andy (talk) 14:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

    Indented, user has already voted. — neuro^(talk) 15:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

82. Support. Per noms by AGK (talk · contribs) and Durova (talk · contribs), per answers to the first three questions, per some excellent quality contributions to this project. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 18:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
83. Support Fair 'nough....displays abundant knowledge of guidelines, policies, and tools. :-) Cheers. Imperat§ r^(Talk) 19:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong Oppose per I don't like patronage candidates and this user has only 1495 article space edits, so not understanding why the user is supposed to have the experience. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

   The 1,400 mainspace edits looks different when you consider that this includes a Featured article. If it was 1,400 on automated twinkle/huggle edits I could understand, but high quality, manual edits is a different kettle of fish. Ironholds (talk) 06:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

   Counts are a poor proxy for contributions, as noted above. What do you mean by "patronage"? Cool Hand Luke 06:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

   Well, before you guys go too far with the low edit count means good contribution argument, I'll point out that the user has 678 rollbacks. Whatever the exact figure in article space is, that's gotta be an awfully big share of 1500 "manual" edits to article space. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 08:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

   Do you have any concerns about the manner in which he uses the rollback device? This is probably a more important question. - Richard Cavell (talk) 08:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

   There was no "low edit count means good contributions" argument, simply "low edit count doesn't necessarily mean bad contributions". Ironholds (talk) 08:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

   Yes, but the quality of his edits was never raised by me, only by you and CHL. Using the normal and most sophisticated method of human reasoning in these circumstances, an est. 800 manual edit-count in main space is a good indicator of lack of experience. In fact, it would usually be unacceptable to RfA voters; my guess is that the reason why it isn't here has something to do with the first part of my vote. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 09:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

   Hi Deacon, one of the paradoxes of the type of volunteering Seddon does is that it tends to distort the raw edit count. He's a mediator; most of his seven featured credits are media credits; he has also hosted episodes of Not the Wikipedia Weekly/WikiVoices. It's a strong sign of experience and understanding to do these things successfully while averaging nearly one featured credit for every 200 mainspace edits. Now I'm not sure what 'patronage' means (would that be me?), so asking it this way--who would be more appropriate nominators than a mediator and a featured media contributor who have both observed this candidate firsthand for many months? Durova^Charge! 15:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

   I apologise for asking this, but why did you bother to ask the candidate a set of four questions after you have commented here in the discussion ? The privilege of being permitted to ask questions is there purely so you can ask the candidate any number of questions to assist you in deciding whether or not you will support or oppose the nomination, not, as you so succinctly put it "4 questions as (n)o-one else is asking any". I know that many will argue that the questions (or rather, the answers to the questions) may be of some use to your fellow editors and may help assist them in determining whether or not to support the candidacy, but I cannot help but feel it is some how ethically wrong to effectively vote first and ask questions later, when you have made your feelings about the candidate known. Nick (talk) 16:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

   "Privilege of being permitted to ask questions"? Please, give me a break! That is not a privelege but a right, and no permission is needed. Any registered WP user (or even an IP, if I am not mistaken), can ask RFA questions. Nsk92 (talk) 16:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

   Nsk92: I suppose Nick was noting that the community setting up questions is really a privilege has it can, in some cases, serve to substantiate one's argument. From that point of view, it really is a privilege. Conversely, Nsk, it certainly is not a "right." This is said so often, but I shall repeat it nonetheless: the only privileges you have on Wikipedia are the right to fork and the right to vanish. Note the absence of "right to ask RfA questions."

   I can't help but feel that Nick has a point here. I appreciate your argument, Deacon, but I don't believe we should be rejecting candidates who are clearly well-qualified simply because their article space count fails to exceed X000; that Seddon has featured credits—including featured articles—to his name shows he is truly not an administrator who dwells only in the project space. Suggesting he doesn't pay enough attention to the article space is simply not true; Seddon pays much more attention to the actual writing of our encyclopedia than many of our sysops today. Surely you agree with me on that, Deacon?

   As a final note, I would direct Deacon to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Seddon, where I have provided edit count statitics—including a breakdown of automated vs. manual edits. AGK 16:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

   I am not sure about the legalise regarding the terms involved, but for me the colloquial meaning of "privilege" is something that one is not automatically entitled to but needs to get a special permission for or to earn in some way. A "right" is something that does not requires any such permissions and that someone is automatically entitled to. Like the right to edit (remember, "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit"). It is not a privilege to be able to ask RFA questions and no-one needs "being permitted to ask questions" in an RFA. Nsk92 (talk) 17:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

   Wow, all this fuss over one vote! I think we should leave him be. The RFA is currently doing fine, and this one oppose won't be enough to sway the decision negatively. – How do you turn this on (talk) 17:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

   Just a note for voters, I do intend to answer the questions posted by Deacon. Seddσn ^talk 18:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

   Strong Oppose - due to lack in Mainspace together with namespace edits. Re-apply for adminship in 6 months once you demonstrate a need for the tools. --Coalesce-laugh (talk) 11:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

   User has been blocked for disruption. --Bongwarrior (talk) 11:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral Has not answered at least three questions and has edited after they were asked. This will obviously be a successful RFA but I can't help but wonder about this particular issue.Sumoeagle179 (talk) 15:34, 30 November 2008 (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.