Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Spinboy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Spinboy

Final (19/18/2) ending 20:29 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Spinboy (talk · contribs) – Spinboy has been an active user at Wikipedia, and has been involved heavily in fixing vandalism, putting articles on AfD and dispute resolution. He knows the wiki process better than me, and I'm an admin! -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I accept the nomination. --Image:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 03:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination. --Image:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 20:29, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. MSJapan 03:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. Strong Support May need some coaching, but a definate good faith user who has excellent admin potential. Who amongst us (myself included) can hope to be the one without sin who casts the first stone? -- Essjay · Talk 03:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support Maltmomma (chat) 03:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support--Shanel 05:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  6. Strong Support Active, friendly, factual, articulate and honest Wikipedian. I feel that it is in the best interests of our community that we get more helpful admins onboard like this young addict.  :) Jachin 06:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  7. More levelheaded than a lot of Wikipedians I've interacted with - but still just a human like the rest of us. Support. WegianWarrior 07:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  8. Support --Kefalonia 08:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support He has been here awhile, and made many sound contibutions, however, edit summary use could be better. Banes 10:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  10. Support. Another fine editor from the land of the Moose. Grutness...wha? 12:43, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support, for all the reasons given above. Phronima 17:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  12. You spin me round and round, like a record baby, support. CDThieme 17:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  13. Support - go4it--Irishpunktom\talk 19:04, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  14. Support. I see him during RC patrol and he does good work. My concerns below have been addressed by him, so I think he could do a good job w/ the mop. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  15. Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 08:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  16. Support worked with him before and I think he is a fine user, the links below do not change my mind a bit. Molotov (talk) 15:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  17. FireFox 17:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  18. Support, although I think Spinboy could improve aspects of his editing and community interaction per many of the oppose voters, I feel he would employ admin tools responsibly. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:37, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  19. Support, Spinboy has been very helpful to me and is the one who initially welcomed me. He'll make a great admin. HGB 06:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose, I think, although I'm reasonably willing to debate that. Doesn't quite have the temperament for it is my feeling. See the edit summaries here and here for example. Those are among the very few times he uses edit summaries at all. I've noticed him principally on CfD where he seems to oppose even the simplest of renames without offering a reason at all (he's allowed to oppose of course, but see for example here: note that another user expresses what I just said because it is far from the first such oddity). Also has a habit of voting without reason in the deletion processes, which is rarely appropriate and suggests he views such operations as pure votes rather than discussions-with-polls e.g. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], and the stubborness in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ottawa municipal election, 2006 isn't great, either (although there are users more stubborn by far). These are a pretty random result of a trawl through contribs to see if my gut instinct was borne out: they have to be random, because it's impossible to tell from edit summaries what might be in the edit. -Splashtalk 03:59, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. Tony SidawayTalk 05:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC) I was about to vote support, but Splash's examples gave me pause. This one in particular: "Please discuss your edits on the talk page, none of you are being productive." He may have been right, but if he wanted people to use the talk page he could have put the message there instead of making yet another revert and putting the comment in the edit summary. I was about to settle for neutral when, on reading the comments section, I went to look at freemasonry. There are misleading edit summaries ("rv vandalism", which is actually in one case his removal of a contested external link to an anti-freemasonry website, and in another his removal of a reference to a book, a propaganda piece albeit, called Freemasonry and Catholicism.) This was most likely POV pushing, but it doesn't do to confuse that with vandalism. Then there's this one, "Wikipedia isn't a links repository" which suggests that he either hadn't read, or simply misinterpreted, the policy he cited. This isn't quite up to snuff. Oppose for now, but shows promise and, if he fails this time, should probably try again in a month or so when he has matured. I am concerned that you're engaging in edit wars. This isn't right for an administrator. You need more time.
  3. Oppose. Dedicated worker, but far too volatile. You're supposed to keep to the civility policy even if you don't feel like it. God knows it's hard to deal with people you consider destructive idiots as if they aren't, but it's pretty much a requirement of working on the wiki. (See also User:UBX/du-1.) This particularly applies to someone wanting to be an admin. May calm down in the future; ask again in six months - David Gerard 10:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per Splash and Tony Sidaway. I've found other incidents of incivility as well. --Durin 13:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per Tony's excellent comments. Proto t c 14:01, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  6. Oppose This editor is excessively possessive of articles related to Ottawa. For example, he reverted my tagging of a photo as "replaceable fair use" for no good reason, and became argumentative about it on my talk page afterwards. In addition, I'm not comfortable supporting until I better understand what his role in the Freemasonry dispute is (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lightbringer). In general, not a good candidate for adminship. Finally, I disapprove of images in signatures. Kelly Martin 15:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  7. Oppose I am not well acquainted with the gentleman in question, but the comments brought up by Splash and Tony, as well as a check of his edit history, do cast his temperement in a rather poor light. Anyone who is not capable of garnering the respect of his peers should not be an admin, in my opinion.--Xiphon 16:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. The links provided by users above show an unfortunate lack of civility. Carbonite | Talk 19:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  9. Reluctantly oppose. Spinboy has done a great deal for Wikipedia and his enthusiasm for improving it is remarkable and in good faith, IMO -- but an administrator has to be trusted to use the mop to clean up spills, not beat the person doing the spilling, and I think at this point it would be a license to continue the behavior detailed above. (Replying to a question about intent below with an edit count is not encouraging, either.) — mendel ☎ 20:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  10. Oppose per Splash and Tony Sidaway. Also, not convinced by the candidate's answers in "Questions for the candidate". --PTSE 00:30, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  11. Oppose, reluctantly, per Splash. I like Spinboy, but I too have noticed too many AfD votes and edits without explanation. Admins need to have reasons for these things, and need to be comfortable routinely expressing them. Xoloz 02:46, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  12. Oppose per civility problems as stated above. An admin cannot be uncivil. Ral315 (talk) 07:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  13. Strong Oppose [6]. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  14. Oppose for the reasons cited by Tony Sidaway. Needs time to work out issues of civility. Silensor 20:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  15. Oppose For not being civil and for not using edit summaries nearly enough.--Alhutch 00:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  16. Oppose per Splash and Tony Sidaway maybe later not a big fan of this user espcially over some conflct in AFD lately over Toronto Roads --JAranda | watz sup 06:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  17. Oppose, spelt vandalism with a Z and has an image in their signature. AfD seems to have turned another potential admin bad. Alphax τεχ 13:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    The problem with AFD is it teaches people to Assume Bad Faith. That's why it's so poisonous - David Gerard 16:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    You're opposing me because of how I spell vandalizm and I have an image in my signature? How immature is that? --Image:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 19:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  18. Oppose per above.  Grue  13:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  19. Oppose per things above. Private Butcher 20:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral, after reading everything. Oran e (t) (c) (@) 02:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. Extreme Neutral, the editor is certainly prolific, and his constant activity in improving wikipedia ought to be encouraged. However, he uses very few edit summaries, and they're rarely all that descriptive. Creating a harmonious environment amongst editors is important. —thames 14:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. Neutral, I've read the comments here and some of the links from the oppose votes. I don't have time to do the verification myself at the moment so can't agree or disagree with the criticisms. Tedernst 19:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments

  • Comment please fix your ending time, and format the date correctly by spelling out the month. User:Nichalp/sg 11:01, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I recently had to protect freemasonry and noticed you were involved on the talk page. I also see you are a party to the associated RFAR. I'm not trying to implicate you in anything, but considering that's all I've seen of you (I think), can you reassure me about your involvement? I think others would be interested to hear as well. Dmcdevit·t 03:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I have over 10,000 edits, and my involvement there was not editing, but trying to prevent POV pushing by a particular user. --Image:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 03:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't care about your edit count and I was kind of hoping you'd explain (without me saying as much) the edit warring. Before the protection you had six reverts in under 48 hours. That was a week ago. Dmcdevit·t 04:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
        • A new user was on the scene, and was inserting Anti-Freemasonry POV's into the article, all of them unsourced. Most (although not all) of the edits were reverted. On the talk page it was discussed, but the user wasn't listening to consensus. I suggested to one of the other users involved they should use one of Wikipedia's many dispute resolution method's which is now going on through ArbCom. --[[User:Spinboy|Image:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy]] 04:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Six reverts in three hours? Good grief, I think you're right. No, we have no need for edit-warring admins. --Tony SidawayTalk 05:16, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Actually it was in less than 48 hours, I said (which is still worrying for another reason). And I'd still like an adequate answer to that. As far as I'm concerned, POV pushing does not justify edit warring, which is harmful in its own way. Dmcdevit·t 05:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  • (Update: Support vote above). I have a comment. In August, Spinboy went on a spree through all the Star Trek articles removing links to Memory Alpha. A number of editors (myself included) tried to talk to him about it and figure out why, and he eventually told us that he was deleting them because Memory Alpha doesn't link back to Wikipedia. I appreciate WP:BOLD, but a change of this scale should really have some consensus, and Spinboy ignored a previous consensus to keep the links. I have a concern about what he may do with admin powers if he is similarly "energized" by an issue. That has been my only big interaction with him to date, and I've tracked his progress since. I would be willing to sign as a support if the candidate could state that he would seek consensus before making large scale changes, as that's the only thing I'm really worried about. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I appreciated your comments at the time, and after consideration, I decieded it was best to leave them. I am willing to seek a consensus when making large scale changes, it is important to the overall quality of the article for all concerned. --Image:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 18:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. I already work on reverting vandalizm, so I have no problem with that, I'd also be willing to help enforce the 3RR, and of course, the other policies associated with Wikipedia.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I really enjoyed working on Athabasca University, while not a feature article, I think it's pretty well written.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A. I recently got some stress over being called names over a new user who was trying to defend his point of view. After trying to reasonably work with him, I decided to ignore the user and talk it over with another wikipedian who was able to help me work though it.
The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.