Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sergecross73

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

Sergecross73

Final (97/2/0); ended 11:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC) - successful Maxim_(talk) 11:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Nomination

Sergecross73 (talk · contribs) – Ladies and gentlemen, it is with pleasure that I nominate Sergecross73 to become an administrator. I first encountered him when I was working on the article Tool (band), when I was prepping it for a main-page appearance. He patrols that article and many others, and currently mostly edits music and video game articles. Looking deeper into his contributions, I discovered he makes clueful contributions to AFD discussions (though he has so far not done any closures). His recent posts there and on our various noticeboards show he is able to keep calm when things heat up, with reasoned well-formed arguments that demonstrate a good knowledge of policy. Sergecross73 would be a very good addition to the admin corps, and could make good use of the tools in his work on this wiki. Dianna (talk) 19:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination. Sergecross73 msg me 01:53, 15 November 2012 (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: Well, especially recently, I’ve been spending more time at WP:ANI. I’ve spent time reporting users, and proposing solution for issues, so now I would like to transition into a role where I can help others take action. (Only when I'm not WP:INVOLVED of course.) I feel like I have done a lot of work in notifying various Admin of various abuse of Wikipedia policy, and I’ve always felt grateful that they would typically hear me out, and take action to help me (blocks, page protection, etc.), and I want to “return the favor” and be able to do the same for others. I feel like I’ve got the know-how to do it, (almost 4 years and 16,000+ edits), an approachable attitude, and good visibility (For example, I frequently already comment and give advice at WP:VG) so I feel like I could be a real asset in this area. I plan on working in WP:AIV and WP:RPP as well.

While I haven’t done any Non-Admin Closures, I am quite experienced at AFD, and would plan on moving into working at AFD at an Admin level as well.

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

A: I think it’s a tie between two different things. First, I really enjoy maintaining high profile, FA or GA articles, such as Tool (band), Smashing Pumpkins, or A Perfect Circle. It’s fulfilling to work on high quality articles that you know a large number of people will see, although, of course, then there also seems to be that many more issues to take care of regarding WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:COPYVIOs, etc.

The other thing I really enjoy is working on articles that clearly meet the WP:GNG, but haven’t ever received proper attention from anyone who is knowledgeable with writing a Wikipedia article. When it comes to video games and music, I like a lot of topics that fly under the mainstream, but still get plenty of reliably sourced coverage, so I’m naturally drawn working on their articles. For example, there is Earthworm Jim (PSP), a cancelled video game. There is a lot of misinformation out there on the internet regarding it (especially on video game messageboards or Youtube), so it always makes me happy to see that the article I created on it, containing a ton of my research and findings from reliable sources, is the first hit you get from a Google search. Similarly, there’s a number of album related articles that contained little more than a tracklist originally, that I expanded greatly through detailing information on their development and recording process. (Such as In Absentia or Divide the Blackened Sky.)

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: Sure, I think just about anyone who edits frequently and takes it seriously, is bound to get stressed at times. I've always made an effort to stay cool, address the issue, not the editor, and work through the proper channels to get it solved. For example, I spent a substantial amount of time dealing with User:Metalvayne, who had a long history of genre warring, ignoring consensus, and not leaving edit summaries. However, since he would typically take week or month long breaks, he frequently would fly under the radar as far as repercussions go. However, I stayed calm and patient. Time went by and whenever he did something wrong, I'd start up another section on his talk page giving him a warning, and/or start up a discussion on the respective talk page. (This is probably the high point of all his talk page warnings, before he started blanking some.) After time, I built up enough evidence of his actions that I ended up taking him to ANI - here - where I successfully proposed a topic ban that gained unanimous support. So, I've learned that when things get frustrating, it's best to to stick to policy, do your homework, and go to others for to find consensus.

Optional questions from jc37

In order to help determine whether you meet my criteria (including your knowledge/understanding of policies and processes in relation to the tools and responsibilities that go along with adminship), please answer the following questions.

• 4. How would you personally determine whether you are involved in any particular situation when deciding whether you should block (or unblock) an editor, and when deciding whether you should protect (or unprotect) a page.

• A: This policy is saying that administrative action should not be taken in any scenarios where the Admin has been involved with the dispute/article/users. As such, to figure out if I were involved in a scenario, I would probably act similarly to how I do now when I throw myself into a debate: Go through the article’s history and make sure I hadn’t contributed to the article/subject at hand. I’d probably go to the other User’s talk page and User Page and their edit histories and make sure that I hadn’t substantially interacted with them in the past either.

I would proceed to take action if:

1. I had no history of past interactions with the Users/Topic.
2. My only interactions were purely administrative – such as Warnings.
3. The actions were extremely clear cut and would be done by any Admin. (Like acting on a User repeated section blanking of sourced information with the word “Poop”.)

I would not take action if:

• There was any sort of interaction outside of the scenarios above – in which I would instead likely just throw up an “uninvolved” template, or possibly take it to ANI if it involves blocking.

• 5. Please describe/summarise why and when it would be appropriate for you to apply the policy to ignore all rules to a situation, while also explaining the interdependency between being bold and seeking (and/or following) consensus on Wikipedia.

• A:Conceptually, "ignore all rules" says to ignore rules preventing the improvement and maintenance of the project. In short, its to make sure things don’t get so bogged down in bureaucracy that it’s detrimental overall. I definitely like it conceptually, though I do have a little bit of a hard time showing its practical application; far too often, I see Users misuse it as a last resort to get their way at AFD. (For example, the type of response like “Well, yes, it fails the WP:GNG and has no coverage in third party reliable sources, but everyone in my home town knows this band/album/song was influential! IAR says ignore all rules so I say we’re justified in keeping it anyways!"

My best shot at an example, which may just be closer to generally being bold, is how I handle doing major reworking of an article. Typically, I start by checking the talk page and article history to see how busy the article is, how controversial some content is, and whether or not it appears to be maintained by experienced editors. Usually it’s pretty strongly encouraged to discuss before making major changes to an article, but if I see in my search that the article has very little in terms of the three criteria above, then I typically just go at it, rather than waiting for much feedback, which could be a waste of time if there’s an absence of editors that even care. However, the crucial point is, if anyone does end up objecting, then definitely stop right there and go to the discussion page to talk it out, to make sure there is a consensus/agreement there.

• 6. How do you determine consensus from a discussion? And how may it be determined differently concerning an RfC, an RM, an XfD, or a DRV.

• A: The way to determine consensus is by measuring the policy-based arguments and ignoring irrelevant or arguments to be avoided. Additionally, it’s important to weigh how much thought was put into the policy based arguments as well – placing more importance on someone who makes a claim with a thoughtful (and correct) interpretation of the policy, not just listing off a single link and signature without any sort of explanation. Basically, you use these criteria to see which is the more prevalent stance on the given issue.

Some specific differences to keep in mind at the different areas:

• At DRV, it’s important to keep in mind that it’s not a 2nd AFD discussion, but rather, an examination on whether or not the proper consensus was found at the respective AFD’s closure.
• For requested moves, other things need to be considered, such as WP:COMMONNAME and WP:AT.

• 7. User:JohnQ leaves a message on your talk page that User:JohnDoe and User:JaneRoe have been reverting an article back and forth, each to their own preferred version. What steps would you take?

• A: First off, it would be important to do some research on the situation. Check out the article history to see what content exactly has been disputed. It would also be helpful to check the talk pages of both users, and the article at hand, to see if there has been any prior discussion on it. (It may be good, for example, to know that one of the users has already been warned multiple times about original research, if that’s the problem at hand. Or, it may be good to see if maybe there was a pre-existing consensus on the article’s talk page if it’s a content dispute.)

If it something rather clearly vandalism or a copyright issue, I’d likely change it back to the non-offending version, give a warning on the person’s talk page (it’s sternness varying on how much it seems to have been an issue in the past.) and probably notify the opposite person regarding things like using edit summaries and WP:BRD.

If both versions seem plausible, I’d probably lecture both parties about using edit summaries and BRD, and request that they join a discussion I would have started at the article’s talk page, to hash it out. If we weren’t getting anywhere, I’d probably also notify third parties such as relevant Wikiprojects, or even start up an RFC. If it really came down to it, go to Mediation and then Arbitration, if really needed.

• 8. Why do you wish to be an administrator?

• A:It largely comes down to what I was saying in Q1 - I've spent a lot of time alerting Admin and users at ANI of various issues, and I want to start to "give back" and be able to help from the other side now, the Admin side. To me, it seems like the next logical progression. I've gained the know-how over the years, and am level-headed with working with people. I'd enjoy it, and I'd be helping the project. I can go on, if anyone's unsatisfied with this answer, but most of what I keep on thinking of keeps boiling down to being "willing and able", like I've said above.

Optional question from Buggie111

• 9. Does your username come from the main antagonist of this game?

• A: Wow, interesting, no actually. I wonder how many people have thought that too? I wasn't aware of that character's name. No, actually, my username comes from combining the name of the main protagonist, Serge, with the second half of the title of his respective game, Chrono Cross.

Optional question from Go Phightins!

• 10. Since you stated a desire to work at RPP, I thought I'd ask this question out of curiosity. What's your opinion on preemptively protecting a page based on the likelihood it will get vandalized or otherwise harmed be it through inaccurate information, unsourced media speculation, etc. For example, as soon as the David Petraeus information came out, would you have been in favor of protecting the page based on the likelihood that the page would be vandalized? (Sorry for the ambiguity in advance. Don't hesitate to ask for clarification if this didn't make sense.)

• A: WP:NO-PREEMPT, not to mention many times across WP:PP, says that it's against Wikipedia's open nature to pre-emptively protect pages. So that shouldn't be done. Additionally, I'd almost argue in this case that it couldn't be done. I feel like when there's major happenings like this, especially when they fall into political and sexual scandal territory, that the vandalism would be almost immediate anyways. I mean, I haven't checked to look, but with the way some of the few political AFD's I've taken part in have gone, people get really heated really fast. I can't help but think that, hyptheticaly, if the news broke at 6:00pm, by 6:02pm the article would probably have already been vandalized anyways, probably before anyone could really even try to do it pre-emptively.)

Let me know if that where you were going with with that, or if I took it in the wrong direction.

That's where I was headed with that. I suppose that what I meant would be are you in favor of WP:NO-PREEMPT; I suppose my question would have been simpler if I asked it that way. Go Phightins! 20:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Additional questions from Salvidrim

• 11. If a an editor has had numerous blocks for behavioral issues, seemingly leaves/retires and returns after a few months of absence, and voices his personal goal of "becoming a better part of the community", do you think others should still assume good faith without hesitation or would you support closer monitoring of the returning editor's contributions and stricter consideration because of his history?

• A: I don't feel that both options are mutually exclusive. I don't think it violates AGF if to merely monitor an editor, especially if there's a history of blocks. I think it takes a happy-medium approach, you definitely don't want to follow so closely that it's perceived as harassment, but at the same time, you want to monitor to a certain degree: If they were being sincere, then it would be good to monitor to give tips or help them along. If they were being insincere, you want to monitor so you can rectify the situation. (Such as cleaning up the offending edits, or finding an uninvolved Admin to figure out if another block is in store.)

• 12. What area(s) of administrative work would you stay away from or avoid helping with, and why? (Not areas where you don't feel comfortable helping with "right away", but areas where you're specifically disinterested in working with.)

• A: Probably any Admin work related to images and interpreting image policy. I just don't especially have any interest in working in images, and find the image policy to be kind of...complicated. In my experience, there seems to be no shortage of people who do want to work with images, and I'm not especially interested, so I see no harm in staying away from this.

Question from Dennis Brown

• 13 I think we pile on too many questions but I wanted to offer one with no right or wrong answer as to get to know you better. There is no rush in answering, I'm patient and it might require some thought: I've handed you a magic wand with which you can change/delete/add one policy with guaranteed consensus and no drama. What do you do? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• A To expand on answer Q12, I suppose I'd answer Wikipedia's image policy again. It could be partially due to my overall lack of interest in working in that area to begin with, but overall it seems to get relatively complicated. When newbies ask me for help with it, it's hard for me to explain it to them in a way they understand, and relevant links like WP:IUP or WP:NFCC have been hard for them to follow as well.

Now, I do recognize it's current form was made this way for a reason, to keep us out trouble with legal/copyright issues. So, with this answer, I'm assuming that somehow this magic wand negates these issues. (How else would I have 100% support on this?) In this sort of scenario, I'd like it if images policy was simplified and handled largely the same as adding text quotes. (Providing reliable sources, coming to consensus on whether or not it's necessary, etc.)

If this answer wasn't quite what you were getting at, by all means I can try to come up with an alternate example. (And if it seems like it's a little too out there in "left field", you can take solace in the fact that I don't plan on spending time on images anyways. I just wish it was easier to explain to people when they come to me for help on it.)

Question from 74.163.16.121

• 14 What would you do if a disruptive Ip was being harassed by a fellow admin,who is not doing his or her job properly,or do you believe an admen can never turn disruptive edit like?-Trademark 74.163.16.121 (talk) 17:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• A Admin aren't perfect either, they're also only human, so you don't want to necessarily assume their always right, they do make mistakes. However, you used the term "disruptive IP", so it sounds like there was probably wrong-doing on their part too. Anyways, I'd probably handle it largely the same as I would for my answer to Q7, going through the steps of research to figure out what the issue is, and whether or not I'm an involved party.

If the Admin did happen to be doing their job wrong, I would like to talk it over with them and try to come to an understanding. If an agreement couldn't be come to, then I'd definitely want to gain consensus through various discussion avenues, because I know that wheel warring, basically the equivalent of edit warring with Admin actions, is to be avoided.

Additional question from Bagumba

15. You encounter an AfD for an article on a video game-related website that has been open 8 days. The article content is fine (verifiable, no copyvio, BLP issues, etc), only the notability is in question. Two !votes say to delete citing failure to meet both WP:WEBCRIT and WP:GNG as they could not find any sources of coverage to establish notability. Three !votes say to keep as the website is obviously notable, but they do not specifically identify any sources. Can you explain your thought process on how you would handle this?

A: Well, to start off, it's not a headcount, and you're supposed to weigh policy-based arguments heavier than ones that are otherwise. The "delete" !votes are pretty firmly rooted in the notability standards, where as the "keep" ones don't appear to be based on anything. On one hand, I guess it may depend what the "keep" ones did say, although, anything they would say that would make a difference, would need to be verifiable through reliable sources, something they haven't provided yet. I suppose it would also come down to if they couldn't or wouldn't find sources. Did they search and nothing was out there? Or were they somewhat lazy about it and not really take the time to look? Perhaps there really are sources out there. Anyways, without knowing that, at this point, I'd favor the delete side, but since that's not really the biggest amount of participation from either side, I'd probably want to re-list it first, to try to come to a clearer consensus, ideally coming to a conclusion like this recent AFD, which was deleted on the same grounds, but had a few more people speaking up and supporting the deletion rationale.

If you did a search yourself and did not find any sources that supported notability, would you still re-list or would you do something different?—Bagumba (talk) 22:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, considering there's none of those high-risk issues like BLP or copyright issues, (as established in the original question) it doesn't seem like it would hurt to extend discussion by relisting it either way.

Optional Request by User:jc37

16.) This is more a request than a question. This is somewhat a followup of my consensus questions.

Please select any 3 open CfD discussions (listed at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Working#Discussions_awaiting_closure), copy them to /Closures, and "close" them. The cfds must have more than 7 individual commenters, and must not be unanimous (or even nearly unanimous). And obviously, please explain the whys and wherefores of the close. (If you are more comfortable with AfD, that would be fine too. The idea is that the discussion should not be one which is easily seen as unanimous (or even nearly unanimous), and which had many commenters.) - jc37 03:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

A. I apologize, I'm not ignoring this, it just took a lot of my time and energy today to figure out how I wanted to answer Q #17, and I want to make sure I do this one justice as well.

Optional question from Townlake

17. Case study time! One of your supporters, Swarm (an admin himself), just called one of your opposers, InToronto, a dick. I come to you asking what can be done to persuade Swarm not to repeat this incivility. How do you respond to my query?

A. Well, it's a little awkward to answer this considering it's between two people who have decided to support me, but I will give some thoughts on this anyways.

Firstly, I do believe there is a difference between and calling someone a dick, and the phrase "dick move". One attacks the person, where the other is more of an attack on a particular action. To up and call someone a name clearly violates WP:NPA, where as "dick move", while it is strong wording, is commentary on their editing and actions. It's different if you're referring to a single move or a person in their entirety. For example, I could accept, hypothetically, that someone could call an edit of mine stupid, and not be out of line. I could have made a bad judgement call, or maybe the other person and I just don't see eye to eye on a topic. But I couldn't accept it if someone were to just flat out call me a stupid person and not be out of line. It's not constructive, and not true as a generality.

So basically, on one hand, I don't think what he said was as out of line as your summary made it out to be. He didn't attack the person as much as he attacked his editing, and I think it's important that we're able to honestly comment on one another's editing in order to communicate and improve ourselves. On the other hand, I do understand your concern, the wording is still a little harsher wording than I'd personally use. Unless hypothetical escalation ensued, at this point, I'm not sure any action beyond a friendly note on both of your talk pages would be necessary, outlining the things I just said above. Something along the lines of we need to be careful on how we word some things, they could offend some users, but at the same time, there's some truth here too - it does seem to be frowned upon to not leave an explanation in this sort of thing.

And since I imagine it's a likely follow-up question if I don't say it now - How would I have confronted "InToronto"? I'd probably give him a link to WP:AAAD (Especially http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_adminship_discussions#Not_providing_a_rationale) and remind him that his approach is weighed less by the closer of the discussion, and as a side note, will probably bring extra criticism to him. If he chooses to ignore me, then I'd leave him be. He's not breaking any policy, and it's up to him if he wants to take the extra heat for taking an approach that is ultimately weighed less in these discussions.

General comments

• Links for Sergecross73: Sergecross73 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Sergecross73 can be found here.

---

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

Discussion

• Edit stats posted to the talk page. -- Luke (Talk) 03:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
• My response to Townlake's apparent misunderstanding of my below comment can be seen here (diff). Townlake should've brought his concern to me directly, rather than to Sergecross. Q17 is blatantly loaded, completely misrepresents my comment, and concerned two editors and an issue not directly related to this candidate or this RfA. Swarm ^X 21:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

  • I'd recommend the question to be withdrawn, mostly because both what is asked, and the answer the user may give, are falling outside the scope of this RFA, or any RFA. More than helping the user or assessing their skills, this question puts them of a very difficult situation. — ΛΧΣ21™ 21:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Yes, the question should be removed. It is a severe misrepresentation of fact. AutomaticStrikeout 21:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

It may be all of those things, but we expect admins to read through things like this (though we all make mistakes). And this, at least, is phrased in such a way to be a "how would you interpret the situation, what steps (if any) would you take", etc. I'd suggest letting the question stand as any other optional question. - jc37 22:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• I'm hoping to come to some sort of an understanding with Townlake. The question presupposes that I personally attacked someone, which I did not. It's based on a faulty premise, which makes it impossible to answer correctly, putting the candidate in an unnecessarily difficult position. I could care less if it posed a general question about civility, or even a hypothetical situation in which I personally attack someone. As is, though, it directly makes a claim that's simply untrue. At the very least, I think the serge should hold off on it while I discuss this with Townlake (unless he insists on not altering it). Swarm ^X 22:13, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not altering the question. It's not illegitimate merely because you don't like how I'm reading your statement. The question is optional, and does not require acceptance of my premise to be answered. Townlake (talk) 23:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

No, it's illegitimate because it's a blatant misrepresentation of the situation. AutomaticStrikeout 01:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, seems like the question "shot back" the user who made it. In my opinion, Sergecross73's answer is very outstanding and classy, better than expected. Now I strongly support him. — ΛΧΣ21™ 16:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "shot back," I don't feel rebuked or anything. Serge's answer is a good one; I was already in the support column and will stay there. (And for what it's worth, I wouldn't have made any hay about this at all but for Swarm obnoxiously sticking a link to the "don't be a dick" essay into his response to InToronto. I still maintain he crossed a line for no benefit.) Townlake (talk) 18:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nominator. — Dianna (talk) 02:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
2. Support after review of his history and past work herein. Kierzek (talk) 02:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
3. Good candidate. — ΛΧΣ21™ 02:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
4. Support While more content contributions would be nice, but the note on the candidate's userpage (that he likes to take articles only up to B-class), combined with the several hundred edits on 4-5 articles replace that little void I have in my support nicely. Great success rate at AfD, as well as a decent amount of them. I also like that the user has several AfD's in the Most edited project-space list on X!s edit counter, which shows that he is not afraid to dive into a controversial AfD and cause more drama provide a logical solution. Would like to caution the candidate about doing some non-admin work in the realm of AIV and RFPP, as he has no edits to either of those pages. But still, the only possible way I'll be able to oppose this candidate is if it turns out he worships Rex Ryan by sacrificing Tom Brady jerseys to a large, green and white trash can five times a day. Good luck. Buggie111 (talk) 03:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
5. Support; user appears solid and won't be likely to start causing havoc after four years of consistent and generally problem-free editing. Your comments on WP:IAR are particularly strong. Nyttend (talk) 03:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
6. Support Was already inclined to support and the answers reaffirmed that. AutomaticStrikeout 03:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
7. I've seen him around and I've found him to be a communicative and sensible editor, and I think it likely that he will be appropriately careful with the admin tools. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
8. Support I think that there are a ton of pros and very few cons. A few highlights: pros- great content work, experience in areas he wants to contribute (he?), steady edit count over last several months, neat userspace, solid communication skills, legible signature and username; cons- well, I suppose that experience in non-admin closures would be nice, but I think he's participated in enough to know how to gauge consensus. Passes the "would this help or hurt the encyclopedia as a whole" test, so I see no reason to oppose, and lots of reasons to support. Go Phightins! 03:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
9. Support The user seems to have the experience and maturity to handle the extra tools in a responsible fashion. - MrX 04:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
10. Support excellent editor, long experience. Cavarrone (talk) 06:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
11. Support Great editor and excellent answers to the questions. I don't see any negative sides of the editor which could have forced me to oppose. Torreslfchero (talk) 07:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
12. Support I often work on the same articles as this editor and I believe he definitely has the required experience and maturity for adminship. Cyan Gardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 07:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
13. Support - Absolutely. Great answers to the questions, and a review of their AfD participation and other interactions serves to inspire even more confidence in this user. Swarm ^X 07:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
14. Support. Good contributions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
15. Support - their AfD history looks on the money (both from correlations between !votes and results, and from inspecting a random sample); a random selection of their edits shows nothing of concern. WilyD 10:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
16. Support. Sensible editor with a good head on their shoulders, easy to work with. A good and clear record, many great contributions to articles and behind the scenes. Sergecross73 gets my wholehearted support. Яehevkor ✉ 11:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
17. Support based on lots of positive interaction at WP:VG. Everything I've seen indicates general cluefulness. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
18. Support. Nothing screams problem-in-the-making to me at this time. --Nouniquenames 17:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
19. Strong Support - I have closely collaborated with the user on numerous occasions, and he has shown a high level of dedication and competence, coupled with the level-headedness needed to deal with eventual disputes and/or unhelpful editors. Excellent edit history, flawless record, great AfD experience, impressive content contributions -- I cannot think of a single reason not to support this nomination. Salvidrim! 18:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
20. Strong Support Seems like a good choice. Answers look good and skimmed edit history and looked reasonable to me. PaleAqua (talk) 19:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Switch to strong support after the answer to 17. Good answer to mined question. PaleAqua (talk) 17:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
21. Support Q13 had no wrong or right answers, and yes, you gave the right answer. It shows you have common sense, an understanding of nuance, a balanced outlook, an understanding of your own limitations, good clue, and a calm perspective. And it was an honest and frank answer, not a pandering response. As your metrics look fine, I'm happy to give my support. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
22. Support - looks to be a good editor, and answers to questions are pleasing. GiantSnowman 20:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
23. Support After review of his history and past work herein. - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
24. ‑Scottywong| gab _ 21:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
25. Support Seems reasonable enough to handle the mop. Figuring out when to block an persistent vandal should indeed be easier than some FUR questions and he has the right attitude to address or pass on the more difficult cases. --Tikiwont (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
26. Support Came across him during an AfD and from there, all of his work that I have seen it positive and he seems to be quite a good aspiring janitor. John F. Lewis (talk)
27. Support. No reason not to. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
28. Support - He is certainly better in the AfD arena than I am. I make my share of mistakes, this candidate does not. A seriously good editor and role model for all wikipedians. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
29. Support I see no reason why not to. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
30. Support. I am thrilled with the cogent Q1-Q3. The give back comment is also a winner. The "image policy is kind of ... complicated" shows restraint and appreciation of depth. The edit distribution with content at 72+11 percent is appreciated. A strong AfD main diagonal with keeps and deletes. A clear understanding of what is needed, and that goes a long way. I'm a bit troubled with pointing to WP:AIV in Q1 but minimal/no edits there; that was an issue in the other RfA, so I'll explain my logic here. I can support candidates with good answers or good experience, but I will lean oppose with weak answers and little experience. With either prong, I can find trust; with neither prong, it is hard. In addition, the Q3 story displays the advantage of reporting trouble. It's not all roses. I am concerned when there are many edits to an AfD page. That suggests lobbying, badgering, or repetition. It's better to state a position completely and then get out. AfD is a debate; it should not be endless discussion. Yes, answer some questions or concerns, but also draw a line and trust the closer to be a smart guy. The AfD comments I saw are toward policy, and that is good. Glrx (talk) 02:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
31. FA Encyclopedia builder that participates in AFD, sure Secret ^account 02:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
32. Support Experienced, thoughtful, civil. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 03:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
33. Support - Looks good. Michael (talk) 04:09, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
34. Support - Very good user over at WP:VG. ZappaOMati 06:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
35. Support – He seems to have a good balance between maintenance tasks and article editing. The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 06:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
36. Support - Like his answers - mop please! Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} ^(Whisper...) 12:33, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
37. Support - I liked the answers to Qs 1-3. As always, I would encourage double-checks of grammar but only because you'll find people have less to nit-pick during contentious discussions. I have seen a couple of Serge's AfD contributions get taken out of context / get misinterpreted becuase they were missing links or fully-thought-out thoughts. Just meant they had to be explained further later. Not entirely his fault but he might find editors will expect "right-the-first-time" contributions from Admins, especially for closes and things. I have zero concern about Serge's ability to get better and better as he goes along. Adminship is no big deal and Serge seems to understand that. Looking forward to working with him. Stalwart111 12:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
38. Support I think Sergecross73 would be helpful in areas which really need careful admin attention. Dental plan / lisa needs braces! 14:57, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
39. Support I have confidence in his nominator's judgement, and the candidate's knowledge of policy convinces me he will make good use of the mop. Miniapolis (talk) 15:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
40. Exceptionally strong candidate. There are mountains of evidence suggesting this candidate would succeed in this role and be a tremendous asset to the project if/when he chooses to use the tools. Thank you for volunteering. Townlake (talk) 15:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
41. Support OK for me--Morning Sunshine (talk) 15:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
42. Support - The nomination statement and everybody else's comments already contain anything I might say. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
43. Doesn't seem like they'll cause chaos. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 17:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

    Support - Very cool and collected user,he has his head in the right place.~Tailsman67~ 74.163.16.121 (talk) 19:33, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

44. Support - I trust both the nominator's good judgement as well as the nominee's ability to wield the mop constructively and cluefully. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
45. Per nom, and I like Q13 and Q8 too. - Dank (push to talk) 19:53, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
46. Support Clear responses that explain his intent without merely spewing policy and guideline acronyms. Same behavior in AfDs, and I like ones like this where he is open to preserving via merge/redirect. Q15 shows ability to guage consensus in IAR-like situations where policy is not being violated but use of guidelines is not overwhelming. I also like his restraint in using a supervote (though I would have given bonus points if he had mentioned the option to just !vote himself and build consensus and and leave for another admin to determine consensus). The composure he showed in the ANI case he mentioned in Q3 is about as cool as I would hope to be when the other party is being difficult. I'm with Glrx above that this is the type of candidate—one who clearly shows clue in other areas—that I can be confident that they will be prudent when entering areas where he has minimal experience (e.g. WP:AIV and WP:RPP).—Bagumba (talk) 20:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
47. Support - great to see an experienced and knowledgeable editor with his interests applying for admin. Need more mature over-site in these areas anyways. Good luck - got my support!Moxy (talk) 21:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
48. Support - can't see any problems here. Deb (talk) 21:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
49. Support - I believe that Serge will do a fine job with the mop and I see nothing which would raise a red flag.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
50. Support - excellent answer to the questions above and good activity in various areas where he can make good use of the extra tools (AfDs etc.), as far as I can see from his contributions.--Mark91it's my world 23:57, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
51. Support Good candidate that will do a fine job with administrator tools. TBrandley 03:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
52. Support — Should do fine. Kurtis (talk) 05:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
53. Support Excellent answers to the questions, competent, experienced contributor who seems to have the right qualities for the job. Begoon ^talk 06:06, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
54. Support Solid candidate, has clue, will use the tools well. Spencer^T♦C 06:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
55. Support. I have seen the good work Sergecross73 has done at AfD, and I think s/he would do well with the tools. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 08:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
56. Support, enough experience and satisfying answers. --Makecat_Talk 13:31, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
57. Support Yep. — Hex (❝?!❞) 13:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
58. Support - Don't see any issues. Rlendog (talk) 14:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
59. Support great contribution history. Trust them with the mop! Good luck. T.I.M^(Contact) 04:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
60. Support Deserves the mop.Lucky102 (talk) 17:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
61. Support - I like the answer to Q17 quite a lot. Carrite (talk) 18:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
62. Strong support- A rare RfA support from me, and definitely a first for a strong one. This editor has excellent integrity and a history of excellent contributions to the project. I'm particularly impressed by the way he really nailed all the questions, particularly Q17, a horrible question with a brilliant answer. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 18:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
63. Should work well enough. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
64. Support I like what I see, and can see no reason not to believe that the candidate will be beneficial to the project with the bit. Q17 is a very good answer, very impressive! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
65. Support in view of answers to questions, selected contributions, and in particular selected AfD contributions. --j⚛e decker^talk 00:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
66. Support - I am familiar with this editor from his good work at AfD. His cluefulness there, and his answers here, indicate he will make a solid admin.  Gongshow ^Talk 02:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
67. I'm still expecting a slew of opposes to find something super trivial to attack, but hopefully that won't happen finally. Wizardman 03:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

    I appreciate your optimism filled view of this page. It really touched me. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

68. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 04:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
69. Support. Great contributor, and the excellent response to Q17 demonstrates the kind of level-headed approach required by a prospective admin. — sparklism ^hey! 08:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
70. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
71. Support. Looks good to me. The music/videogame side of Wikipedia could definitely use the help :-) ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
72. Good candidate, no concerns apparent. Good luck, My76Strat (talk) 19:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
73. Support. No concerns — Frankie (talk) 19:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
74. Support No significant concerns to warrant an oppose. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 20:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
75. Stephen 23:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
76. Support. A contributor of quality; would make a fine admin. dci | TALK 00:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
77. Support - Per nomination and answer to Q13. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
78. Support. - Looks good to me and we could use more help with administration overall. Good luck and remember to serve the community well! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
79. Support The contribs I checked looked good, answers fill me with confidence plus the only contact I've had with them has been positive. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
80. Support. Glad to have you on board. -- œ^™ 11:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
81. Support checking out logs shows that candidate has tried out the tools. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
82. Support —stay (sic)! 18:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
83. Support From what I've seen, the candidate is level-headed and has a sound understanding of policies and how to conduct oneself around Wikipedia. I see no reason to believe that granting use of the tools would do anything other than benefit the encyclopedia. (To further substantiate my support, I'll add the courteous participation in a deletion discussion of an undeleted expired PROD, some common subject areas of interest between us, and of course the rumour that the candidate likes bacon!) -- Trevj (talk) 20:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
84. Support Candidate seems to have a very level head on his shoulders, and seems to have a genuine commitment to Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. I have no doubt he will use the tools in a mature and constructive way. Guðsþegn (talk) 23:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
85. Support. Great answers to questions. Best, Lord Roem (talk) 23:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
86. Support. likely net positive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
87. Support - seems solid and calm. Active editor with knowledge of video games and good participant in the WikiProject Video games. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
88. Support I am extremely impressed with the answer to question 17. It is well thought out. To be able to answer a question that puts the candidate in a difficult position like that definitely proves that they are admin material.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 14:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
89. Support no concerns. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 14:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
90. Support Has been around since 2008 and has created 26 articles .Feel the project will only gain with the user having tools.See no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
91. Support I reviewed this user's userpage and talk page and find that this person presents their self appropriately and seems friendly and open like an administrator should be. I further read this user's response to questions and feel comfortable supporting this adminship. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:39, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
92. Support. In a process with too many questions to the candidates, this candidate's answer to Q17 is exactly the way that a clueful person thinks. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
93. Support user history and answers suggest the editor will use the bit effectively and responsibly. -- Scray (talk) 21:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
94. Support per Dianna.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 23:06, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
95. Support Meets my criteria. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 02:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
96. Qualified candidate. Courcelles 07:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
97. Support, Sergecross has a great percentage on main space edits and didn't loose the "the big goal": building up a free encyclopedia. mabdul 07:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose leaning neutral. I'm satisfied by AfD participation and accuracy, as well as his content creation work. His question answers also leave me content. However, I am forced to oppose here because of his desire to work in AIV and RfPP, and his limited participation in both areas. He has only submitted 3 reports to RfPP, and has no record of any reports to AIV. I can't support a candidate without experience in areas that he plans to work in.--Slon02 (talk) 20:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

   While there is no substitute for experience, do you have reason to believe he wouldn't slowly involve himself as an admin in those areas by staying away from the non-obvious cases initially?—Bagumba (talk) 20:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

   No, other than his words in the first question that say he plans to work in those areas. If he hadn't mentioned that, I'd probably support him (probably- not definitely). Although it is possible for a candidate to lie and conceal that, I appreciate this candidate's honesty, and I would also hope that no RfA nominees would lie (if we were in a perfect world). But since he does want to work in those areas, I'd rather he wait, get some experience there, and run again when he has.--Slon02 (talk) 21:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

   Something tells me that the placing of the statement (at the end of the nom) means he'll take baby steps in that area of admin tools. But that's only my opinion. I can perfectly see why you would oppose. Buggie111 (talk) 22:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

   Perhaps because I received my bit this year, or because I had to agree to mentoring after the bit, but I tend to be open minded on these things, as once you get the bit, you always end up where you least expect it. I had never dreamed of doing SPI work, or creating more articles, yet that is how I've spent this first year. If you can trust him in general, then maybe you can trust he will go and learn where he is needed most, and where he finds joy. And if it brings him joy, he will soon get good at what he does. This is why I think humility and knowing your own limitations is so important. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

   Perhaps it's that way with some people, but I ended up exactly where I expected. I don't know what this candidate would do and what areas he would work in, but I'm taking him at his word and assuming he would work in AIV/RfPP, among other places, and would want him to get some more experience before becoming an admin in those areas, instead of solely learning on the job.--Slon02 (talk) 01:06, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

2. Oppose Intoronto1125TalkContributions 03:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

   Off-topic thread moved to the talk page. ‑Scottywong| prattle _ 15:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Neutral

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.