Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Discospinster

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

[edit] Discospinster

(70/1/1); Closed as successful by WjBscribe at 20:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Discospinster (talk · contribs) - Discospinster has been a great user. He/she made his first edit in June 2004 and has been very active since early 2006. He/she has also been a great vandal fighter as well as making some mainspace edits as well. I see this user wikifying articles, tagging articles if necessary, cleaning up, and making several different mainspace edits as well. So ladies and gentlemen, Discospinster as a candidate for adminship! NHRHS2010 00:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Co-nomination by Wizardman: For a loose of idea of how ready he is for the tools, I nominated him back in November, believing him to be ready. He declined then, yet as proof of how dedicated he was to what he did I went and gave him rollback privileges when those were allowed to be handed out, due to his great vandal fighting ability. He's beaten me to vandalism many times, and is certainly very good at what he does. His dedication to wikipedia is tireless, as evident by his edit count being innumerable (45k+). We can't really ask much else from our admins, or our users, so it is time to give him the tools. Wizardman 21:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Accepted. ... discospinster talk 16:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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 admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I intend to mainly helping out with Administrator intervention in vandalism (to which I currently contribute) and Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. I also plan to help out with protecting pages from incessant vandalism.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My contributions mainly focus on cleaning up vandalism with Lupin's anti-vandal tool, Twinkle, and non-admin rollback; warning vandals; and wikifying and stub-tagging new pages.
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:
  1. A couple of years ago I was targetted by a troll who objected to my removal of false/hoax information. The user was blocked but went on to create sock puppets to continue harassing me. I eventually stopped responding to the troll and s/he went away.
  2. Last year I assisted with the New York Radical Feminists article along with a new user who was not happy with some of the edits I had made. I let the user know that I was only trying to help, and we eventually came to terms on the issues.
Generally, if the user seems to need constructive assistance, I will offer it. If the user merely intends to get a rise, I will ignore him/her or report him/her if necessary. If the user objects to my edits or behaviour, I will find out what I am doing wrong and correct it.

Optional questions from - Milk's Favorite Cookie

4. When do you apply a cool-down block?
I don't, at least according to WP:CDB. I understand "cool-down block" to mean a block in anticipation of, say, edit wars or uncivil behaviour. In other words, a pre-emptive strike. I'm not likely to impose a block unless the user has actually done something to warrant it.
5. You see an I.P. who has been vandalizing for the last several months, his last block was a year long, and after that he has continued vandalizing. What are the next step(s) you would take?
First I would look at WP:BP and WP:IP again to make sure I'm not missing anything.
I would consider whether the IP might be an open proxy or a shared address (e.g. at a school). I would perform a whois to see if it belongs to a school, in which case I would re-block for continued vandalism and place a "schoolblock" or "anonblock" tag on the talk page.
If the "whois" does not point to a shared IP, I'd ask for an analysis at WP:OP and then take appropriate action based on the results (e.g. indefinite blocking).
If I'm not sure, I'd ask an experienced admin for assistance.
6.You see an account which was recently created, and has been going crazy vandalizing. What next step(s) do you do here?
I'd warn the user first. If the vandalism continues after the final warning and it seems to me that the user is playing around I'd block for a short period of time (e.g., 24 hours). However, if the vandalism is particularly heinous or indicative of a bad attitude toward Wikipedia, I would block the user indefinitely.

Optional Questions from Carerra 22:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

7. How far would you go to improve one article?
If I had the resources I would probably spend a bunch of time looking up citations for an article that desperately needs them. Wikifying and improving the appearance of an article are important as well.
8. What is the only thing that would distract you from your admin duties?
Real life. Honestly, I can't really think of anything that would distract me from my admin duties. I'll probably be doing much the same things as I'm doing now, only with a few more abilities, like blocking and page protecting.

Optional questions from Tree Biting Conspiracy (TBC!?!) Partially lifted from Wisdom89, Dlohcierekim, Tawker, Benon, Tiptoey, and everyone else.

9. If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia what would it be?
A: I'd like to require users to register in order to edit, but I'm not wedded to the idea.
10. What is your opinion on WP:IAR? When would the "snowball clause" apply to an AFD or a RFA, if at all?
A: You had to ask me that question! I'm on the fence about IAR. On the one hand, I can imagine situations where ignoring the rules is better for Wikipedia than following them, much the same as breaking the law might be more in the interest of society and justice than adhering to it. On the other hand... there is such a potential for it to set uncomfortable precedents. I just can't answer that question in a way that would satisfy you.
As for SNOW, I can similarly understand arguments for or against, but I tend to lean towards not using it, only because I don't think it's a big deal to wait until the appointed expiry date before closing a discussion, even if there is an obvious consensus — just to avoid objections.
11. A considerable number of administrators have experienced, or are close to, burnout due to a mixture of stress and vitriol inherent in a collaborative web site of this nature. Do you feel able to justify yourself under pressure, and to not permit stress to become overwhelming and cause undesirable or confused behavior?
A: If I feel that my emotions are getting in the way of my job as an administrator, I'd take a break. I don't see that happening too often, though.
12. Will you list yourself in Category:Wikipedia administrators open for recall?
A: Yes, I have no problems with that.

Questions from Majorly

13. Are lots of questions irrelevant to the candidate stupid?

A. I haven't seen any yet that are irrelevant!

14. Why do you think that?

A. Er, why not?

15. Do you play the violin? If yes, would you strive not to ever edit Violin?

A. I do not play the violin, however I cannot promise that I will never edit Violin. In fact I might edit it more since I am obviously objective on the subject.

Optional question from AndreNatas

16 What is your opinion and stance to WP:IAR?. AndreNatas (talk) 16:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
As I mentioned above in question 10, I am of two minds about WP:IAR. I don't really see myself using it as a justification for my actions (especially if my actions are unilateral).

[edit] General comments

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Discospinster before commenting.

[edit] Discussion


[edit] Support
  1. Nominator support as a nominator NHRHS2010 18:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. Support - seems competent and conscientious from my observation. Deb (talk) 20:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. Strong support. Nommed him a few months back, he declined. Was ready then, is definitely ready now. Wizardman 20:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
    I'm not a fan of co-nomming RfAs post transclusion, but if he still wants me to then I could. Wizardman 20:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. Outstanding candidate. Rudget (?) 20:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. Support It was about time. Húsönd 20:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  6. Definite Support, very good user. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 20:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  7. Support - Pretty darned impressive if you ask me. Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  8. Excellent user. It will be a benefit for Discospinster to have the tools. Acalamari 21:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  9. Strong Support - 45k+ edits - 'nuff said! ArcAngel (talk) 21:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  10. Strong Support Great edit summary usage, great edit count, should be a positive admiin, and will definitely help out at WP:AIV. You're a great vandal fighter, adn you would be a great admin! Also, considering that you have been here since 2004, and declined several nominations, it shows expereince, and it shows the exact opposite of power hunger. And the answer to my questions look more than great! - Milk's Favorite Cookie 21:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  11. Support No reason he'll abuse the tools. SpencerT♦C 21:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  12. Strong Support Has been around since 2004 and turned down offers for nomination.Track is very good.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  13. Support - trustworthy editor and keen vandal fighter. Addhoc (talk) 22:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  14. Support Dlohcierekim 22:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  15. Can't say no! Majorly (talk) 22:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  16. Support 35000 mainspace edits? Holy crap. I don't care if they were automated, twinkle, huggle, or anywhere in between. You obviously have the best intereste of Wikipedia at heart. Please don't block someone or delete the main page once you get the keys to the janitor's closet. Be smart. If you know it, do it. If you don't. Ask first. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  17. Strong support. Seen him around. Good editor. Malinaccier (talk) 23:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  18. Strong support, an awesome editor! Obviously he isn't power-hungry as he has declined a nomination before, obviously has enough experience and hasn't been in any trouble that would hinder me in being able to give my strongest support. Hope to see you carrying the mop soon, Poeloq (talk) 23:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  19. (edit conflict) Support No qualms here. Plus, the username is spectacular. нмŵוτнτ 23:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  20. Support I like. RC-0722 communicator/kills 23:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  21. Support Excellent editor. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 23:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  22. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 23:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  23. Slade (TheJoker) 23:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  24. Should've done this a long time ago. ~ Riana ⁂ 00:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  25. Support I'm glad you finally decided to go through with this. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  26. Support Without question, a dedicated and trustworthy Wikipedian. κaτaʟavenoTC 01:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  27. Support without hesitation. Toddst1 (talk) 01:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  28. Support - yup! - Alison ❤ 01:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  29. Support; consistent, reliable, predictable, trustworthy. Accurizer (talk) 01:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  30. Support Yes. - Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 04:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  31. Support, dedicated user who should be trusted with the tools. Kuru talk 04:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  32. Support User's (plethora) of edits span the wiki, his non-templated message interactions with other editors is polite and friendly, well-versed in vandalism and the tools would be a help there. I am reasonably confident that this user will continue to exercise good judgment, and community trust should be extended to him. Good Luck. -- Avi (talk) 05:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  33. Support Only good will come of this!--Dacium (talk) 06:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  34. Support This user's got clue. :) GlassCobra 08:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  35. Would be strong support if this editor was a content contributor, but has ten times the experience of most of the other content-shy vandal-fighter type noms who get through these votes. Plus, breath of fresh air to see that this user does it for the sake of it rather than to be an admin. When I saw this user's record and history I expected this to be like the seventh nomination, but no, the first! As long as this user avoids intervening in content-related matters and/or blocking established users, handing her the mop should be nothing but a benefit to wikipedia! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  36. Support. Obviously not just a vandal fighter. FusionMix 15:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  37. Support - this user appears to be fine and has raised no concerns. Bearian (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  38. Support - good user, good contrib, fights vandals...what more could one want? Good luck! --Camaeron (talk) 17:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  39. STRONG SUPPORT This user has blown me away with some awesome answers above. I think I've just learned a lot from him in just reading this RFA!!! Dustitalk to me 19:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC) 19:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC
  40. Support seems to do a very good job, dedicated and capable. - Modernist (talk) 19:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  41. Support. This user will be a fine admin, IMO. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 19:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  42. Support Yup. Jmlk17 23:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  43. Support - oh, go on, then! —TreasuryTag talk contribs 08:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  44. Support -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  45. Support definitely. - Zeibura ( talk ) 18:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  46. Support — Zerida ☥ 20:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  47. Support - Long overdue. Acroterion (talk) 20:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  48. Support Looks good to me. --Sharkface217 21:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  49. Support Everything looks good and he seems trustworthy.— Ѕandahl 04:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  50. Support, seems fine to me. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 11:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  51. Support per answer to question 15; disco fans should never play the violin. (Note for the humor-impaired: experienced, trustworthy and rational candidate.) Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  52. Support, straight-forward, long overdue  — master sonT - C 19:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  53. Support. bibliomaniac15 20:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  54. Support - Based on answer to question #15. Seriously, I agree we do need administrators specializing in specific areas, and this editor has certainly found their nich! Good luck to you. Shoessss |  Chat  01:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  55. Support MBisanz talk 05:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  56. Unconditional support - seen this user around and they are very much admin material. I was wondering why this RfA didn't come any earlier. :) Pegasus «C¦T» 06:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  57. Support seems trustworthy. GtstrickyTalk or C 14:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  58. Support - a refreshingly familiar username, and one that's usually been associated with statements that make good sense. Relata refero (talk) 15:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  59. Support - Good answers to questions, undoubtedly experienced, and will use the tools well. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 00:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  60. S u p p o r t :) Fattyjwoods (Push my button) 05:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  61. Ok. — CharlotteWebb 16:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  62. —DerHexer (Talk) 19:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  63. Support - will be a net positive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  64. Support per his answer to my question, he seems to be a good candidate. AndreNatas (talk) 12:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  65. Support seems ready for the task. --MPerel 17:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
    Support Good luck and keep your head up! Dustitalk to me 18:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC) Oops! Its just been a bad day. Sorry....I think its time for a Wikibreak. Dustitalk to me 19:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
    <indent> user already supported above at #39...--Cometstyles 18:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  66. Support I think that this user would be an excellent new admin :). Thank You, Mifter (talk) 23:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  67. Support Looks good. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
    Support sounds good, no problems Fattyjwoods (Push my button) 07:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
    Duplicate vote (see #60 above) --jonny-mt 08:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  68. Support (This my 1st time wading in on an RfA btw). Admirable record. Contribs impressive. Strong on the answers. No 'power issues' or tool concerns. All the best, Plutonium27 (talk) 11:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  69. Strong Support - no concerns whatsoever -- Tawker (talk) 16:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  70. Support, faithful editor. SexySeaShark 16:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose
  1. Strongly Opposed Sorry I am changing my vote from slightly opposed to strongly opposed. Although the edit count is high, I feel that little value has been added to wikipedia. I feel that the user has in somecauses overreacted and changed good edits. He has acted first and failed to read the editors changes. Pointing this out I feel that he will keep to his habits and block users without first understanding the problem. The reason why I feel this way is because of some of the users who have voted in support act in the same manner as this user. The purpose of wikipedia is content first. Everyone here must remember that.Thright (talk) 05:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)thright
    What do you mean by "changed good edits"? Did she revert them? Could you also provide diffs to back up your statement. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 00:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Neutral
Neutral - Please give all the necessary tools (be they administrative or just a hammer). to fight vandalism to this individual!. They have done a Fantastic Job. To be honest, if I was Wikipedia, I would have paid you for the job you do! However, to hand over the ability to block – delete and interpose on articles that need a gentling hand, I’m not so sure? Shoessss |  Chat  22:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment Can you explain why? Personally, an editor since 2004 is a great amount of expereince, easily for an administrator - Milk's Favorite Cookie 22:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Sure, as you can see by my opinions, I am never afraid to say what I may Feel, be they right or wrong :-).! The first thing I looked at was, the edit count. With 45,000 edits, that is indeed impressive! However, a little over 35,000 where to main Mainspace, with only a 1.42 average edit per page. To me, that means vandal fighting! Is this appreciated, of course! However, it is quite easy to left click that mouse button and let the bot do the work. As I said, give this person or girl the hammer or a paycheck, to fight vandalism. (They have done a great job and my hat is off to you) However, as I am sure you are aware, with the responsibilities of being an administrator, you have to be a tad more experienced in other areas other than just vandalism. Is my opinion to oppose a reflection on the individuals’ judgment or character, of course not! However, giving this individual the tools with the ability to Block or Delete, sorry to say, I have not made my mind up yet. Hope this helps explain my neutral. Thanks Shoessss |  Chat  23:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Just a note, Discospinster has only one edit in 2004, his/her second edit is in 2005. NHRHS2010 00:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Can I just point out that administrators have areas in which they specialise, i.e. base most of their work. Fighting vandalism is one such area, in which admin tools are rapidly becoming a necessity, as doing it the old school way becomes ever more difficult due to the increase in users. Lradrama 09:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
You know us Old Fogies’, we are always stuck in our old ways :-). Shoessss |  Chat  10:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  1. Neutral leaning oppose haven't seen enough to show me that he knows or understands the requisite policies... gave decent answers to the questions... but just not enough for full supportBalloonman (talk) 08:25, 8 March 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.