Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Spartaz

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

Spartaz

edit

Closed as successful by Cecropia 15:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC) at (38/1/1); Scheduled end time 09:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spartaz (talk · contribs) - Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Spartaz!
This user has been with us for an year now, and has been actively involved with the project. He has constructively contributed to articles like Immigration, Visa (document), British national identity card , Passport, Bob Woolmer, Jodie Foster and Kate Winslet. Spartaz came to my notice on a variety of deletion discussions on WP:DRV, where I am pleased to inform you that he has commented constructively and civilly; and shown good knowledge and regard for the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. He is a very civil editor who keeps his cool when the discussions get hot, and I strongly believe that he will be a good role model to new users when he is an administrator. He is also involved in maintenance drives and has cleaned up various articles using automated tools. All in all, I believe that he is good combination of an editor-janitor user and will use the new tools responsibly.

In the interest of full disclosure, Spartaz was blocked for breach of Wikipedia's three revert rule in October 2006. A long time has elapsed since then and I am confident that Spartaz has taken that lesson to heart. Godspeed! — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 07:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Yes, thank you. I'm honoured to have been nominated. Spartaz Humbug! 10:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate

edit

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I'm not by far the most active editor we have - I have a young family and a 60 hour a week job. Finding time for my Wikipedia fix has to be juggled with other responsibilities but I'm good for a minimum of a few hundred edits every month and would be willing to make sure I helped out where I can. I'm regularly involved in DRV and new page patrol. I'm certainly not going to be diving straight into closing contentious DRV's but I can see a role helping out by userfying articles that need more work before they are ready for main space. I believe that I do understand the speedy criteria and I would like to assist clearing the perennial backlogs at CSD. After that, I'm not a stranger to AFD and would be willing to help out here.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Hmm. I'm a little disappointed that I haven't been able to contribute more extensively to main space but I was particularly pleased with the contribution I made to keeping the original research out of the Bob Woolmer article the first few days after his death and making sure that information was properly sourced. I also rewrote the British National Identity Card to remove POV content and to better balance the article and cleaned out many of the image copyright violations out of the Passport article. I have also been active in DRV - trying to help new users understand the relevant policies as much as reviewing deletions and I have also helped to fix many new articles on New Page Patrol.
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 think the key to any stressful situation is to try and learn the lessons from the conflict. Early on in my wiki career, I was involved in a dispute with Mikka about adding image dispute tags to the captions of the incorrectly tagged images I had nominated for deletion from the Passport article. Mikka objected to the tags because they made the article untidy and I stupidly got involved in revert warring with him over the tags because they were required in the relevant guideline - instead I should have sought a third opinion elsewhere. This led to my 3RR block as I was adjudged to have been the same person as an anon ip adding additional caption tags that I had forgotten and therefore had committed a 4RR. The ip wasn't me - I'm based in Copenhagen not North America but I did learn to accept responsibility for my actions - I was revert warring and should also have been seeking a consensus rather than blindly following instructions on a guideline. Later on, I let myself get badly trolled by the now banned Cindery over the YouTube deletion discussions and learned from that to pull back when emotionally tied up to a situation - something I believe is absolutely crucial to happy and successful editing. I haven't had anything stressful on-wiki for ages and hopefully this is evidence that I have learned from my early mistakes.

Optional question by AldeBaer

4. Since we all started out as readers of this encyclopedia, I'd like to know what your three (or more) favourite reads on Wikipedia are (may be articles, or even policy pages, whatever you like), ideally with a short explanation as to what especially you like about them.
A: I actually found this a very hard question to answer - the is an awful lot of really high quality content on Wikipedia and the click-thru means that a decent surfing session takes in a lot of pages. Also, what interests me depends on my mood. Anyway, I personally find the history content on Wikipedia to be top notch and spent a very pleasant rainy afternoon reading up on Julius Caeser and then onto Roman history. A real shame that the article has recently lost its good article listing - something I wasn't aware off until I went in an rechecked the article before writing this! A useful reminder, I guess, that we need to maintain articles to keep the quality up. Aside from this I really enjoy looking at featured image candidates - trying to get some tips for my own pitiful photography and some of the images are really fantastic. Finally, I keep half an eye in AN, AN/I and RFAR - its good to keep in touch with the wikidrama and you can learn an awful lot about the right and wrong way to edit by watching the discussions unfolding. Spartaz Humbug! 15:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question by Richardshusr

5. Under what conditions would you block an established user (e.g. one with more than 500 edits)? Under what conditions would you block another admin?
A: I'm not sure why you listed established users and admins separately as all good faith contributors to the project deserve the same consideration. The simplistic answer is that blocks are preventative not punitive so users should only be blocked when there is a clear need to prevent damage to the project: whether that be to prevent disruption; because an account has been compromised or for some other reason such as abusive sock use or evading a ban.
There are clear areas where I wouldn't block - if I were involved in a dispute with the user, if the user hadn't been warned, if I didn't have time to properly investigate the situation to establish the full facts, or even, if a user asks for a block. Beyond that it depends. Blocks are mandated for 3RR and NLT but these are actually subsets of preventing disruption to the project. Tempers can become frayed and even the best editors loose their cool. Kneejerk blocks are rarely effective in calming down situations so blocking has to be used judiciously on established editors because you risk escalating the situation and potentially driving away a productive contributor to the project. My personal view is that I wouldn't want to block anyone unless I had first given them an opportunity to cool down and stop whatever behaviour is causing the problem and, particularly with established users, I'd try to engage them on the dispute first. If there were no alternative than I would have to protect the project and block but I'd very much like that to be the last resort. Spartaz Humbug! 17:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

edit

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Spartaz before commenting.

Discussion

edit

Support

  1. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 07:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. Although I am a tad worried about your low edit count, I do trust you have a family to raise and a job. (see below response) You have been blocked for 3RR a while, but I won't that against you either; that was 8 months ago. All I see is steady, good contributions from you, and your questions are more than good enough that I can trust you with the admin tools. Sr13 10:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You clarified later that you didn't actually mean "low edit count", but could you withdraw that part? It may seem obvious to us that it's not low, but someone new to RfA might be perfectly willing to believe that 4684 edits is "too low", causing editcount inflation to continue. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support seems like you would do fine. Riana ⁂ 10:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support -- quite the well-rounded editor: fair edit count, displays fair understanding of policy, and seems to be fairly civil. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk -- (dated 10:56, 17 June 2007 UTC)
  5. Support Looks fine to me. --Lwarf Talk! 11:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. No reason not to. —AldeBaer 11:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support - as per nom ..--Cometstyles 11:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support The block for 3RR is old news and even if he only helps a little that is fine. He seems reliable also so why not?--†Sir James Paul† 11:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - I question Sr13's assertion that the editcount is low - he has over 4000, which is plenty (it's about what I had when I passed RfA). No problems, and I trust the judgment of many of the supporters above. Waltontalk 11:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not that his edit count is low; the activity from his account was my concern. But since he has a good experience around these parts, he'll do just fine as an admin. Sr13 22:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support no major concerns here. Should do a good job as admin. —Anas talk? 12:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support I have no major complaints here. I believe he knows wiki-admin policy, and that he should have the tools! Politics rule 13:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support The only concern I have is the 3RR and that was a long time ago. Captain panda 16:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support seems good to me. Acalamari 16:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. Good user, no problems, - Zeibura(talk) 18:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support User has plenty of experience. 3RR block was nearly 8 months ago, and I think we can forgive that incident, since the user appears to have been conflict-free since then. Nishkid64 (talk) 19:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support while the block may be alarming to some, it seems you handled it with dignity and class, and it was eight months ago, so bother me it does not. Black Harry (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 20:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support This editor shows a good range of experience over the project. Nearly 5,000 articles is clearly ample. I do not view 3RR blocks in anything like as serious a light as I view intentional vandalisms, and it was 8 months ago and the candidate has treated it as a learning experience. Good. good candidate.--Anthony.bradbury"talk" 20:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support You're trying to work with other editors and articles rather than simply AfDing. Whether you get admin or not, keep that up. KP Botany 01:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. Good editor, experienced enough, good work on the YouTube project. No concerns. I don't have a problem with "low" edit volume, as I've seen enough to be confident this user won't abuse the tools, and will use them to Wikipedia's benefit when he does have the time. After all, we're all volunteers. The 3RR thing is ancient history, and being trolled by Cindery is almost a badge of honor (or so I like to think). Support without reservations. MastCell Talk 04:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Uhm, yes. No firm reservations are foreseeable. Jmlk17 05:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Nothing to suggest editor may misuse tools. PGWG 12:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support - Looks fine. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 22:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Would make good use of the tools. -- Jreferee (Talk) 01:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 05:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support I first encountered Spartaz at Bob Woolmer. Good editor, and I think would make a good admin. Flyguy649talkcontribs 07:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Nothing to complain about (except for the 3RR block, which I forgive). Stwalkerster talk 10:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support No evidence will abuse tools, seems to learnt from 3RR block which was over 8 months ago. Davewild 19:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support per above. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 23:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support per nom. Peacent 02:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Block was nearly 8 months ago. ~ Wikihermit 03:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 11:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Looking through your contributions, I find you to be thoughtful and articulate - even in cases where I might disagree with you. I'd say you'd be an asset as an admin.--Kubigula (talk) 03:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Happy to support will be an asset to the community.--VS talk 16:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. Long-term experienced users are an asset to the project as sysops. Italiavivi 00:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support per nom. --A. B. (talk) 00:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Moderate support, good. Cheers, JetLover (Talk) (Sandbox) 00:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Terence 04:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support --Dwaipayan (talk) 13:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose for now. Seems like a nice person so far, but would benefit from more experience, particularly of the conflicts which can arise in wikipedia. I would favourably consider another nomination in the future. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I dunno... anyone who had the pleasure of dealing with Cindery can hardly be said to lack experience in conflicts... MastCell Talk 03:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Per block for 3RR. ~ Wikihermit 19:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC) (changing to !support)[reply]
    That block was nearly 8 months ago, and the user has not had any other incidents since then. Reconsider? Nishkid64 (talk) 19:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, more than 8 months [1]. —AldeBaer 19:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral. General lack of experience, and furthermore has never uploaded anything, so can't possibly have a good understanding of ... something – Gurch 23:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    They never said anything about going to WP:PUI or anything. Come to think about it, not very many of use even go there. bibliomaniac15 BUY NOW! 01:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just like the candidates opposed for lack of XfD experience never said anything about closing XfDs. Yes, you can call me fussy, but if I genuinely thought there was an issue I'd be opposing – Gurch 18:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Spartaz&oldid=1145735553"