Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Spawn Man

Add links
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.

Spawn Man[edit]

Final (20/14/3) Ended 08:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Spawn Man (talk · contribs) – Everyone should know this guy already. He has over 6100 total edits, almost 1700 mainspace edits, 3 FA's, a Featured List, participates regularly in all aspects of Wikipedia, and works very well with new users. He caught my eye just looking through edit histories, and he remains civil, is always cheerful, and above all else, works hard.Shrieking Harpy Talk|Count 07:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Yes, I excitedly accept this oppurtunity! -- Spawn Man 09:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Statement from Spawn Man - I can clearly see that I'm not going anywhere in ahurry. Obviously edits I made many moons ago have come back to haunt me. Nobody has obviously read any of my explainations. Nobody has obviously read how I've made an effort. I probably will never become an admin because people can't seem to forgive & forget. Obviously a year's hard work isn't enough. Obviously 3 FA's & 1 FL aren't enough. Obviously numerous DYK's contributions & maintainance chores aren't good enough either. Obviously I'm not good enough for some people. Thanks you all so very much for the oppurtunity; Elaragirl I appreciate it deeply & I'm sorry to let you down by withdrawing from this RfA. For my 20 support votes; Thank you so very much for thinking kindly of me. I'm sorry I've let you down as well. As for my opposing voters; Well obviously we have a good consensus here. I'm sorry I wasn't up to your standards. I hope that this statement isn't too volatile for you all so that you can oppose me for this in my next RfA, if I even make it that far. Yes I'm stressed now & yes I guess I have quit. I'm not the first & will not be the last. Thansk everyone for caring enough to vote. Incase I haven't expressed it, no, I do not wish to continue this RfA & I withdraw before I get too stressed. Goodbye & if I have any wikibreaks from now until anytime later I don't want it held against me incase I'm ever in a vote again. But judging by this, my userbox of "Yes everyone hates me" is probably true. Thanks... Spawn Man 08:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I'd definitely be more active in the vandal whacking area. I've never really been all too active that line of work, since most times I found a piece of vandalism on RC, it's been reverted by a quick admin before I could do the same. So yes, more input there would be expected. I'm familiar with the work admins have to do, but haven't really taken part in AfD's etc until recently when my editor review suggested I do so. So I'd basically be helping out around the place maybe protecting articles (I hear they're short staffed there), deleting them etc. It looks like fun, but I also recognise there is a lot of responsiblilty that comes with it too... I might even partake in the blocking of accounts, but I take no particular pleasure in blocking someone. I would hope to make a few notes to the person before I block them... -- Spawn Man 09:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Well hands down it would have to be my contributions to Dinosaur, my first FA. I didn't really have the fall back net of the WikiProject Dinosaur's team then (as they were still largely inactive), so it was mostly my edits. Although I'm just as proud of my other FA's, I have to admit I had a real backing team in the WikiProject Dino team. Other than those, I've edited a couple of other articles I'm proud of: Jewellery being probably my favourite. I did about 3 weeks of research & eventually made the article into an A-class one. -- Spawn Man 09:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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: Well, as you may know, I have been in numerous conflicts over my year+ editing here. A couple of the people I fought with are now my closest friends. However, of late I've been learning to deal with any issues in a more calm way. I expect a few people to dig up old talk page comments I made, but I hope everybody realises that I have been making an effort to be kinder, especially with new users & have joined Esperanza to aid in my calmness. I usually deal with precarious conversations by stating my feelings before removing myself for a while.I also use exclamation marks a bit to express I'm stressed without saying anything I might regret! I usually speak to a group of editors on here that seem to calm me when the heat gets high also. However, I do take a wikibreak now & then if stress gets too high. after all, it's not worth it & I do seem to forget that sometimes. In the future, I plan to improve my communication skills. About a month ago I was really down on here because I wasn't sure if anybody actually liked me or thought I was worth anything, but it really helped hearing reassuring posts from a few of you. I hope I wont let you down if I do progress to the next level of wikiness... :) -- Spawn Man 09:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Doug Bell (talk · contribs):

4. More than 20% of your 6,000+ edits have been to your user page and subpages.In March 2006 your 45K subpage User:Spawn Man/Reviews was listed on MfD for violation of WP:NOT.In the MfD you made a number of threats about what you would do if the decision was made to delete the page,[1][2] displayed incivility,(edit summary) spammed talk pages to recruit votes on the MfD[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] and then left the project for about six weeks.[11][12][13]Given that experience, a) how would you handle a similar situation now and b) what is your interpretation of WP:NOT as it relates to non-Wikipedia content in user pages and how would you approach closing an MfD for another user's subpage listed for WP:NOT?
A: Well as you said, the incident was around 9 months ago now, so I have learned a fair bit from then. The main problem with my subpage was that it had fair use pics & I didn't really understand about what pictures I was supposed to have or not. Now I do have an excellent understanding. In regard to question a) - As I said in question 3, I handle things now by stating my feelings & then hopefully remove myself from the situation. As you state, I did take a long wikibreak, as I felt that I could not cope with the amount of stress that I had subjected myself to. Now I would probably not have overreacted as much & lost my cool. As I said, I've been making an effort lately to get along with people & be nice. For question b) - Good questions here people. If it was in clear violation of WP:NOT, then it would obviously have to be deleted. However, as I've said, I prefer a constructive notice, (such as "this page is in violation... etc"), over a MfD nomination anyday. If no improvement was made, then I'd probably like to consult with another admin as what action to take next before probably lodging a MfD nomination. The only reason I supported my page not being deleted was becasue it was actually my page, & let's face it, nobody really likes their stuff being deleted. I hope I've answered your questions in some way. In relation to spamming talk pages, yes I indeed message about 5 or 6 of my friends on wikipedia to give their thoguhts on the subject, but I didn't spam anyone who I had not had numerous encounters with. In regard to my high amount of user space edits: I make no attempt to hide that yes, I work on my user page & subpages quite a lot. I do take pride in my user page, & have tried to keep it up to the standards of Sango & Phaedriel. Also, I hold a number of surveys & quizzes from my page, ones which a number of editors take part in. They have been dormant of late as I've trying to focus on article writing & MfD's & RfA's. Thanks & if you need anything else don't hesitate to ask me... Spawn Man 21:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from Malber (talk · contribs)

5. What do the policy of WP:IAR and the essay WP:SNOW mean to you and how would you apply them?
A: I feel that the policy WP:IAR is exactly as it sounds, ignore the rules if they restrict you making Wikiedpia a better palce or improving it. However, I feel that this should not be a rule which allows you to go making edits or changes just because you want to. I feel that in any situation, consultation with another experienced admin should be called for. I would never use this rule for any alterior motives that may harm Wikipedia. As for WP:SNOW, that too is exactly as it sounds. There is no need to complicate it. If a snowball situation arises, & they are often very easy to tell, then I'd act accordingly & shut down the voting. I'd refrain from doing so however if the subject was a controversial one, where I'd probably let it run its full course. Hope that asnwers your questions. Spawn Man 01:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Is there ever a case where a punitive block should be applied?
A: Well of course. Basically I'd block someone under the normal circumstances that an admin would block somone. Although I'd probably write a note to the person & of course use all the warning templates, I'd still have to consult with another administrator just to make sure I wasn't abusing my adminship. So vandalism of pages & extensive personal attacks would be at the top of my list. Generally anything that would be causing Wikiepdia disruption would be criteria for a block if the person did not change his/her ways. Hope that answers that question... Spawn Man 01:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. What would your thought process be to determine that a business article should be deleted using CSD:G11?
A: I find it relatively easy to tell the difference between an actual encyclopedia-worthy business article & a non-encyclopedia-worthy business article. If it's a company say like Sony etc, who affect technology & such all around the world, it's obvoous that should be included. But if it's "Mr. Mac's local shopping grocery with Tuesday specials", it's obvious it should be deleted under the WP:CSD criteria. Any business article which sounds blatantly POV or OR is usually one that should go. But there is a difference between a non-notable business article & a poorly written one too. In these cases I usually tend to stay neutral or place a weak keep to show that I'd like to see if it can be improved if it is indeed legitimate. Usually unsourced business articles that also include the problems I've stated above are usually deletion worthy too... Hope that helps? Thanks for your great questions... Spawn Man 01:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from JoshuaZ As always, all additional questions are completely optional.

8. Related to the concerns brought up by Doug Bell, could you discuss what in general you learned from your experience with that MfD? How would you respond to concerns that similar behavior might occur again and that with admin tools the result could be far more damaging?
A: I want to state now, for complete transperancy, that yes I was indeed behaving badly prior to a few months ago. Not just badly, but very badly. I agknowledge that thoughroughly. As I've stated above, I knew someone would pick up on my older talk edits or summaries & get the wrong idea. So instead of letting everyone come to their own theories, I'll tell you the exact truth now so that you can finally know. If you still want to oppose for these reasons after I have exaplined then there's not much I can to change your mind. From about this period (when my subpage was put up for MfD), I had been under a lot of stress from certain areas of my life. My mother was having a breast cancer scare & that was followed by a stomach ulcer around about 2 months ago when I made my struthiomimus comments. I acted way out of line both times & both times I took Wikibreaks, one for 6 weeks & the other for a week or 2. However, as I've repeatedly said, I have made the hard effort to be nice & as far as I'm aware, have not made any conflicts in the past 2 or so months. I have learnt how to deal with my frustration in a better way & I feel it has been showing. So I'm begging you not to convict me on my past fights made under extreme stress, but to look at how far I've come since them & what changes I've made. I now know that editing when you think your mother is dying was a very very bad idea indeed, one which I won't be repeating. Other than that I can't say much more to sway your minds. I'll post this lower down too so that the opposes can see my response in relation to my struthiomimus comments. Now, what did I learn from MfD experience. Well I learnt to remove yourself from the situation. I got way too involved in something that now seems so trivial. It just wasn't worth it & I let it get on top of me. In fact, currently I couldn't really care less if my subpage was deleted, as I'm having far too much fun editing articles here. I lost out as I got so frustrated I had to spend time away from Wikipedia, a place I thoughroughly enjoy & poured over 1 year of my life into. In response to concerns that that behaviour will happen again, I make deadly clear that it will not. If I even get a tiny bit too involved with a topic or discussion, I will most certainly remove myself & would never ruin anyone elses experience here by abusing my admin powers. If I ever did (& I won't) I'd be the first to vouch for the removal of my sysop powers. I am both hurt & sad that anyone would think I'd go as far to abuse my administrative powers to further myself or to make a point. This says that I am not smart enough to sought out any matter with words & that I'd have to block or revert to get my way. I really hope that this will be taken under advisement & I hope I've answered your question JoshuaZ. Thanks, Spawn Man 02:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Related to the above question could you discuss what you think WP:CONSENSUS and WP:SPAM have to say about votestacking and internal spamming?
A: Well consensus is obviously a biggy. Wikipedia wouldn't work without it. One of my pet peeves is when someone changes an article in a large way on their own without community support first. I personally enjoy collaborating with other users & finding out about what their thoughts are. Although it can often be a long drawn out process which takes ample time before anything actually gets done, it is vital. In voting consensus, needless to say that it is impossible to come to any conclusion without a community consensus. I always try & get a quick vote on things before making major changes. If it's an ongoing dispute between 2 or more editors, I would, & have in the past, get a more experienced admin or editor to cast in their opinion. It has worked in the past & a level head can always get the parties to decide on something. As for the WP:SPAM subject, as I've said above clear company spamming in articles is unacceptable. I share the same view with external link spamming. It's okay if the link has vital & sourced information relative to the article, but if it clearly unrelated or has ample advertising or bias, then IMO, it has to go. User spamming is a little more tricky. As it says on the page, I find that "Friendly notice"'s between familiar users is acceptable, but as in the Simon Gastrich incident, multiple notices to complete strangers is out of the question & is extrememly disruptive. Although it does serve to bring a wide range of people to create a large pool from which to create a consensus, it is an extremem & most often bad way to do things. Inluding people for votes & excluding others based on their beliefs is also a disruptive way to do things... Well I hope that answers everything? Spawn Man 02:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. Radiant has brought up serious concerns regarding your opinions on deletion discussions. WP:V is in Jimbo's words "non-negotiable" and yet you seem to have ignored WP:V. Radiant's difs therefore seem to leave us with a dillema: you either don't know about the most basic policy or choose to ignore it on multiple occasions. How would you respond to concerns that this shows either a lack of knowledge of policy and/or a lack of respect for policy?
A: As I'm going to state below as well, I prefer giving an article a change to be fixed before deleting it. For example, one of my FA's, Tyrannosaurus. When the dino team & myself got hold of the article, it had very few references & even less (possibly no) inline citations. Based on what people have said, an article of that size with that much unsourced text would have either been deleted or significantlycropped. However, we took mthe time to find resources, first temporary ones, then numerous scientific papers which supported the text of the article. Before we knew it, hey presto, a FA! Almost every paragraph was cited. Now I voted keep (note the weak keep), so somebody could find sources now that the article was in the spotlight & possibly message the creator to ask where he got the information from. I don't feel that the article should have been given any less time than the Tyrannosaurus article simply becasue it was less known. Indeed, I would have changed my vote if there were better arguments for the opposing side, as the player did join MU. Also, if the result had been keep, & I had tried to get sources, but could find none, then I myself would have relisted it at AfD as no more work could have been done. We can't just bring a little known article from the depths of Wikipedia, written no doubt by a new person & delete it outright. That would be a concern. I feel that every article should have one chance (unless it is in serious violation of other policies) to be improved before deletion. In the end the article was voted delete. And that brings me back to consensus. I am but one person, & if the article was really as bad as people stated it was, then obviously a consensus would be formed. In the end it was & that is why a consensus voted for the article to be deleted. My obvious inclusionist ways are not doubt somewhat influencing in my decisions... As for the other 2 links brought up by Radiant, in the band AfD I was not the only one to vote keep, but that's beside the point. I couldn't really see any real signs of a vanity article, but since the band was only if actually half notable, I voted a weak keep. I was convinced by both sides & placed my weak keep only to say that I agreed, but not fully. Again, it's my opinion & I feel that I shouldn't be hung for that, nor should I be accused of not knowning the process simply because I didn't agree with what others think. What's the point of having a vote if we're all supposed to vote for the same conclusion anyway? Because I gather that because I voted differently I was doing something wrong. I find it hard to believe that being a sheep is a good aspect for an admin. As for the Valdezian article, I felt that with the right person it could be cited & rewritten, hence why I voted again weak keep. I was not going to give my firm support either way as I knew that I did not have superior knowledge in the article's area. However, as per the footballer's article, I felt that a good search for a source may have been better. Is it wrong to wish to keep an article so one can try & fix its problems? I hope that this has answered your questions. I have to say they were very interesting to reply to & that it gave me a chance to answer issues that the opposer's have... Thanks a bunch!

Spawn Man 03:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I accept now that in future I guess I shouldn't vote either way unless i'm totally sure of the subject matter lest a re-run of this happens.... Spawn Man 03:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
  • See Spawn Man's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
  • My edit count can be viewed from a link on the top right corner of my user page incase you want to check... Spawn Man 10:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Support

  1. Support, I can see no reason why I shouldn't. Spawn Man's easily a good enough editor, and would do a fine job. Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 10:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. Of course.--Dwaipayan (talk) 10:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support per Daveydweeb. ↔ ANAS - Talk 10:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message. - 11:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Really Strong Support I have been thinking of asking Spawn Man if he wants to run for sometime now, but it seems I was too slow :( No matter. The important thing here is Spawn. Spawn Man is a fantastic editor (need I mention the three FAs or the many DYK suggestions?), who is civil and thoughtful in his contributions. The level-headedness that Spawn Man has shown will transfer itself into making Spawn a wonderful Admin, who would use the tools very well.Spawn once said to me that a person like him could never be an admin, as he concentrates less on the social side of wikipedia, and more on the editing side. Let's prove him wrong :) Thε Halo Θ 11:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support of course I know this guy, I see him everywhere. Good luck! --Alex (Talk) 13:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support I don't know this guy, but I likes whats I sees. -- Kicking222 14:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support - and I don't even know you! ST47Talk 14:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I'm Nishkid64 and I support this user. Nishkid64 15:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support good contributor. But please keep a learning attitude as many things require some more thought, experience than usual. Rama's arrow 15:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support There are no major concerns here. However, I feel that the oppose comment given by Radiant is a bit harsh. We must acknowledge that all of us can't be expected to give solid edits 100% of the time. If everyone were to point out the mistakes of every nominee in the RfA process, most (if not all) will fail this consensus. One must also take into strong consideration of the editor's positive contributions to this project as well. If an editor makes great edits consistently but makes a few mediocre edits occasionally, the benefit of the doubt should be given to the nominee. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suppose it's a bit harsh. Still, it should be taken as constructive criticism. Nobody's perfect, and he's not going to fail from a single oppose. >Radiant< 17:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If anything, this RfA has shown me to stay away from AfD's etc incase I vote the wrong way! I thought I was giving my opinion. If rules say what we can vote for, why not just speedy everything & not vote? Sure save a lot of opposes on RfA's... Spawn Man 04:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Michael 15:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - zOMG, 3FA! Friendly, level-headed and sufficiently involved. Can't see him abusing the privs. riana_dzasta 17:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. Very civil user; has done a lot of work fighting against vandalism and improving articles.--TBCΦtalk? 18:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Thumbs up.--Húsönd 18:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. ~ crazytales(lol myspace) 21:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support, as per my nom. I think that a lot of the oppose and neutral votes have some good points. I also think that Spawn Man in a strong contributor who would act in a manner becoming an admin, or I would not have nominated him. --Shrieking Harpy......Talk|Count 00:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support I thought a lot about this Rfa, and wasn't sure where I'd end up. After much review of his edit history and various issues which both supporters and opposers have brought up, it all came down to the 3 FA's. I do have reservations about Spawn Man, but I'm going to go out on a limb here, and support. Jcam 02:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. I was in the same state as Jcam. bibliomaniac15 Review? 03:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support I can't understand half of the oppose votes.The guy has tons of edits, has always been civil, and appears he will be completely trustworthy with the tools.We look for trustworthiness here, people, not edit count, not if he's perfectly balanced in all the areas he's edited (mainspace, talk, etc.), but trustworthiness.Spawn's been around plenty long enough so that we can see he's adminship material. -- P.B. Pilhet / Talk 04:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose

  1. Weak oppose. "Keep" comments for an unsourced unprofessional footballer [14], minor self-published band [15] and a neologism that doesn't really explain what it actually is [16] do not inspire confidence in the candidate's ability to adjudicate process. >Radiant< 15:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What did you expect? He's an Inclusionist. But that's part of why I think he would be a good admin. He creates things, and he improves articles. There are probably lots of people (like Kappa,for example) who vote the same way. Also, his vote on the Football article was a week keep where he pointed out problems and said he would like to see it fixed. As for adjudicating process, as I've said on other RfAs, this guy has a lot less problems than some others who currently have a mop. --Shrieking Harpy Talk|Count 15:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Radiant - the latter two diffs you cite really don't look like problems to me.Weak Keep is a way of saying the article needs work but could be the seed of something better, and the band mentioned had two albums published, which fits part of WP:MUSIC.The discussion on Callum Flanagan made points for and against inclusion, and I'm certainly more comfortable with an admin that keeps articles but demands more quality of them than one who deletes on sight.'course, I'm new here. DukeEGR93 16:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The first one (concerning the footballer) is not so bad in that the individual did have a contract with MU. I could almost see that as passing the athlete criteria but not quite (although why no one in the AfD realized there were WP:BLP issues is beyond me). The other two difs are more disturbing. JoshuaZ 19:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I prefer giving an article a change to be fixed before deleting it. For example, one of my FA's, Tyrannosaurus. When the dino team & myself got hold of the article, it had very few references & even less (possibly no) inline citations. Based on what people have said, an article of that size with that much unsourced text would have either been deleted or significantlycropped. However, we took mthe time to find resources, first temporary ones, then numerous scientific papers which supported the text of the article. Before we knew it, hey presto, a FA! Almost every paragraph was cited. Now I voted keep (note the weak keep), so somebody could find sources now that the article was in the spotlight & possibly message the creator to ask where he got the information from. I don't feel that the article should have been given any less time than the Tyrannosaurus article simply becasue it was less known. Indeed, I would have changed my vote if there were better arguments for the opposing side, as the player did join MU. Also, if the result had been keep, & I had tried to get sources, but could find none, then I myself would have relisted it at AfD as no more work could have been done. We can't just bring a little known article from the depths of Wikipedia, written no doubt by a new person & delete it outright. That would be a concern. I feel that every article should have one chance (unless it is in serious violation of other policies) to be improved before deletion. In the end the article was voted delete. And that brings me back to consensus. I am but one person, & if the article was really as bad as people stated it was, then obviously a consensus would be formed. In the end it was & that is why a consensus voted for the article to be deleted. My obvious inclusionist ways are not doubt somewhat influencing in my decisions... As for the other 2 links brought up by yourself Radiant, in the band AfD I was not the only one to vote keep, but that's beside the point. I couldn't really see any real signs of a vanity article, but since the band was only if actually half notable, I voted a weak keep. I was convinced by both sides & placed my weak keep only to say that I agreed, but not fully. Again, it's my opinion & I feel that I shouldn't be hung for that, nor should I be accused of not knowning the process simply because I didn't agree with what others think. What's the point of having a vote if we're all supposed to vote for the same conclusion anyway? Because I gather that because I voted differently I was doing something wrong. I find it hard to believe that being a sheep is a good aspect for an admin. As for the Valdezian article, I felt that with the right person it could be cited & rewritten, hence why I voted again weak keep. I was not going to give my firm support either way as I knew that I did not have superior knowledge in the article's area. However, as per the footballer's article, I felt that a good search for a source may have been better. Is it wrong to wish to keep an article so one can try & fix its problems? I hope that this has answered your concerns Radiant & opposers who agree with her. Other than that, giving my truthful metal summary of what was going in my head, I don't know what else I can say to sway you? Flowers? (And the bribery has begun already!) Thanks a bunch! Spawn Man 03:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weak oppose per Radiant (never thought I'd say that...) but the diffs he point to show a lack of understanding of WP:V, which I find troubling. Inclusionism shouldn't mean supporting including unverifiable, unreliable information, the removal of which is non-negotiable. --W.marsh 18:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I totally agree with the policy & Jimbo. However, how am I supposed to know the "non-negotiable" statement when I cannot find it on the WP:V page? Unless I'm missing it (& I'd feel very foolish if I was...), I don't think it's on there. Maybe someone could put his opinion on there. Thanks for your comments... Spawn Man 03:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "The principles upon which these policies are based are negotiable only at the Foundation level."--W.marsh 05:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose: I do not wish to convince anyone, so please forgive my terseness: I am concerned about temperament.Geogre 20:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You have no need to be worried about any future outbursts from me. No bait & switch. If I abuse any of my powers as admin, I will personally resign from any duties I may have as one to show that I am deadly serious that I've changed. You can even bring up this edit on a little link during my trial. :) Spawn Man 03:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Needs better understanding of notability. Votes to keep articles that are clearly deletable. Votes to keep the "half notable". Believes " people who have even published one book, written one album etc, should still be mentioned." Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 22:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have provided a statement somewhere up there, I think twice. I have addressed concerns about this there, but I assure you I would not vote keep if I didn't feel that the article could be turned around... Spawn Man 03:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Add to my concerns those posed below. Excellent user and asset to Wikipedia, but needs more time to put issues behind him and gain a little more judgment.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 03:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose - here I'm disagreeing with a lot of editors whom I have the highest respect for, but the diffs provided by Radiant are extremely worrying, and that subpage certainly violates the spirit and probably the letter as well of WP:NOT. How about this from Jimbo Wales, particularly when applied to the bios of living people: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.". WP:V is non-negotiable - and, if I'm being brutally honest, some of the keeps look just wrong. One album confers notability? Ever seen WP:DUMB? No, that's not a personal attack, but that page says something right about album notability, bullet point No.2. Oh, and Doug Bell's diffs are also rather troublesome. The last thing this project needs are admins with volatility issues, which is what those diffs would suggest. And, of course, we are here to build an encyclopedia, not to spend twenty percent of our edits sprucing up our userpage. Moreschi 22:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not saying I disagree with WP:V. I feel that the article was not given the best work it could have been before a deletion was issued. That was all. I do not take your WP:DUMB as a personal attack either. However, I am deeply offended & saddened that you would say something like "And, of course, we are here to build an encyclopedia, not to spend twenty percent of our edits sprucing up our userpage." I have given nothing but my best to Wikipedia; I have 3 FA's to show for it. Agreed, the 20% is high, but I have stated that I was running a quiz page. Some of the answerers were so fast I was changing questions almost every 10 minutes. That's why I've put all of my subpages on the backburner. And yes I did hope to get to the standards of Phaedriel etc who have beautiful userpages. But that's very beside the point. Most of my articles are made in Microsoft Word first. This is due to the numerous amounts of timeouts & edit conflicts I encounter whilst writing in Wikipedia. So I tend to just write on my computer & then copy & pste. This results in a large amount of work being attributed as "1 edit to the mainspace". A prime example is the article Jewellery. I spent 3 weeks researching the subject & writing on my computer. Then in under 20 mins & had written an A-class article, even though it was only noted a a couple of edits in the history. So what I'm pointing to is, is that edit counters etc can be misleading in not showing the correct amount of work relative top the number of edits. If every ten lines were attributed as 1 edit, then I'd say I'd have about double my current count. As for Doug Bell's findings, which might I add are entirely true, I have provided a full explaination & have stated that I will never act like that again as I've come a long way since then, even though 2 months or so seems so short. I hope I've addressed your concerns in a good manner & I hope you will see my explaination... :) Spawn Man 03:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. OpposeAnswer to question 1 bears no relationship to edit history.First contribution to AfD was two days ago; appears to have never warned a vandal (except the curious case of User 24.249.110.99) or requested a sprotect.(Also I'm not keen on the 'new messages' joke, but that's a minor issue.) Mr Stephen 00:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know how question 1 bears no relation? It's a hypothetical question saying what I would do in the future with my admin powers, not what I have done. Beyond that though, I have indeed contributed to a few AfD's over my year here, other than the one's recently. Noone can seem to find them, but I did. Anyway, I am knowledged in the area, even though I haven't partaken in many deletions. I have warned a couple of vandals, but again, what's the point when I have no real power a a "mortal" wikipedian? Asking an admin would just seem snitchy & they usually figure that the account is a vandal address anyway. An admin said that for IP addresses that it would be hardly noticible if I placed a warning on an IP's talk anyway. Also, when I did I was bombarded because a couple of editors said that anyone could be using an IP & that the warning was misguided. That put my off warning, so I kinda ceased altogether unless it directly affected me & wasn't already dealt with. I have requested an unprotect, but I haven't come accross many situations where by I need to request one. I stick around dinosaurs & history articles, which don't usually get much thoughroughfair, apart from Dinosaur, which is currently semi-protected. In other cases, I agree with protections because the articles did need it. So no, you are correct that I have been dormant in the protection area. But again, I don't want to mess with, or protect, articles on which I have no expertise, such as politicians, who seem to get the most vandalsim... Hope this helps... Spawn Man 03:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC). P.S. If you want my new messages banner gone (which is only to get my user boxen shown), then I'll gladly delete it. Thanks...[reply]
  7. Oppose I appreciate the answer to my question above.Normally, the incident at MfD would have been enough for me to oppose without needing to ask a question, but because it was almost 8 months ago I felt the nominee deserved a chance to explain.After much deliberation, I'm voting oppose opposing now for the following reasons:
    1. As per Radiant, Spawn's grasp of policy regarding what belongs here is weak.
    2. Spawn's contribution history shows periods of very useful contributions, but are dominated by edits to his user pages, Wikipedia:Esperanza/Coffee lounge chat and games, or other social but not encyclopedic endeavors like this.
    3. Perhaps given that he does make significant quality contributions I would still choose to support, or at least remain neutral, but his recent (September) outbursts and incivility[17][18][19] and indications of potential admin power abuse[20] here have pushed me reluctantly, but firmly to oppose.
    Despite seriously good contributions, he's just too volatile for a mop. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 00:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I want to state now, for complete transperancy, that yes I was indeed behaving badly prior to a few months ago. Not just badly, but very badly. I agknowledge that thoughroughly. As I've stated above, I knew someone would pick up on my older talk edits or summaries & get the wrong idea. So instead of letting everyone come to their own theories, I'll tell you the exact truth now so that you can finally know. If you still want to oppose for these reasons after I have exaplined then there's not much I can to change your mind. From about this period (when my subpage was put up for MfD), I had been under a lot of stress from certain areas of my life. My mother was having a breast cancer scare & that was followed by a stomach ulcer around about 2 months ago when I made my struthiomimus comments. I acted way out of line both times & both times I took Wikibreaks, one for 6 weeks & the other for a week or 2. However, as I've repeatedly said, I have made the hard effort to be nice & as far as I'm aware, have not made any conflicts in the past 2 or so months. I have learnt how to deal with my frustration in a better way & I feel it has been showing. So I'm begging you not to convict me on my past fights made under extreme stress, but to look at how far I've come since them & what changes I've made. I now know that editing when you think your mother is dying was a very very bad idea indeed, one which I won't be repeating. Other than that I can't say much more to sway your minds. In response to concerns that that behaviour will happen again, I make deadly clear that it will not. If I even get a tiny bit too involved with a topic or discussion, I will most certainly remove myself & would never ruin anyone elses experience here by abusing my admin powers. If I ever did (& I won't) I'd be the first to vouch for the removal of my sysop powers. I am both hurt & sad that anyone would think I'd go as far to abuse my administrative powers to further myself or to make a point. This says that I am not smart enough to sought out any matter with words & that I'd have to block or revert to get my way. I really hope that this will be taken under advisement. Thanks, Spawn Man 02:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I did not come to my conclusion quickly or happily, as I can see that your contributions as a whole have great value.However, I think you need to have a longer period than two months to demonstrate that you have changed.Also, I do think you need to become a little more familiar with the various policies you would be responsible for enforcing.If this RfA fails, try again in a couple of months, and if you have been civil and kept your temper in check, I will probably support you. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 02:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, for the Esperanza Coffee lounge visits, I have now made more edits to this RfA in the last few hours than I have to the Coffee lounge in all my time here. Just so you know that. As for the poem & the games, the games never interrupted with my normal edits & the poem was meant to be as a relief during a couple of my sickdays. I never thought that it would be the subject of scrutiny. I only signed my name to it because if I made any mistakes, I would be easy to find... Anyway, hope that helps.... Spawn Man 04:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  8. Oppose per the diffs cited by Doug Bell.--cholmes75 (chit chat) 01:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose per diffs provided by Doug Bell.DukeEGR93 01:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose the incidents of incivility noted by Doug Bell are simply too unsettling for me.For the sake of clarity, I like Spawn Man's inclusionist tendencies and that is not the basis of my !vote here.-- danntm T C 02:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    For the above 3 opposes, I have made a statement above to give a reason why I made those edits & that they will never happen again, so help me God... Spawn Man 03:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Dear Spawn Man, what exactly were you thinking when you said things like [21], [22], and [23]? Admins can and do block people for this sort of utterances, you know. Kavadi carrier 03:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this an oppose? If not might you be able to direct it over to the general comments section (if there is one of course!). As to answer your question, I've explained it all in the above few statements I've made to Doug bell & Co. Altough nobody seems to be reading them though... Anyway, I don't want you to think of me as a victim or anything as my actions were way out of line. But I was under a lot of stress at the time at home (to do with my mother as you'll find out if you read my comments). I promise you it will never happen again. And as one of the links Doug Bell dug up says, when I say i'm going to do something I mean it. So when I say it won't happen again & that it was a mistake, I mean it. More than I can say for some politicians... ;) Hope that answers you fair question... Spawn Man 03:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that I have clarified my oppose here. Kavadi carrier 03:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose You threatened another user. Losing one's cool like that is never acceptable for an administrator, much less a user. To me it does not matter how long ago that happened. KazakhPol 04:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you point out the link in which I threatened a user? I have indeed been incivil, but I did not ever say that I'd hurt anyone else etc... Also, I find your oppose comment of "To me it does not matter how long ago that happened." I find it encouraging to know that no matter how I hard I try you'll still hold this against me. I believe in chances, & yes I've used up a couple, but I have indeed changed since before. Thanks for voting. Spawn Man 04:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose. Spawn just needs some more time before becoming an admin. Arbusto 05:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm glad you've voiced your opinion. I've given my responses. I can't do much else if you can't accept the truth. I need opposes which I can actually fix or remedy. I can't take back words I said in anger nor can I take back my opinions on AfD's. What do you want from me? I'm confused... I've made mistakes. Yes. Can I take them back? No. Do I regret them? Boy do I ever. Have I changed? Yes. When is everyone going to let my mistakes go? Never? Next year? The year after? I'm just really confused as to what you all want me to do now. I garuntee you will all still oppose for the same reasons in a few months or years. Yes I'm opinionated, but that doesn't mean I have to have so many opposes? I'm just really confused.... Spawn Man 05:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose. Deletion concerns don't really concern me- obviously an entrenched inclusionist but he's entitled to his opinion; there's always WP:DRV if his actions demonstrably became a problem. By contrast, Doug Bell's diffs do concern me. Can't support that sort of sillyness, sorry. Badgerpatrol 06:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Neutral until my question is answered above. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 11:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to oppose. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 00:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral Potential first-class admin, but 1700 edits (albeit generally good quality ones) seems a bit thin - try again later.--Holdenhurst 12:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment ermm....1700 are just his mainspace edits. Overall, he has 6100 totall edits to wikipedia. Thε Halo Θ 12:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral pending answer to Doug Bell's questions and some explanation of the diffs provided. DukeEGR93 16:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to oppose per Doug Bell.DukeEGR93 01:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral tending to oppose per Doug; the attitude that S.M. expressed in the MfD for his reviews page is disturbing. Kavadi carrier 17:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral per the attitude expressed at the MfD for the user sub-page.This says nothing about your abilities as an editor but enough about the communication aspect of being an admin to stop me voting support this time around. (aeropagitica) 18:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral, leaning oppose - As for the MfD debacle, if this had happened one or two months ago I'd oppose strongly.As it is, I'm hoping he has learned from the experience, which was nine months ago.More concerning for me are the answers to Q1, where he basically indicates that the only type of admin-esque work he's done (AfD) was not done because he wanted to, but because someone else suggested it.At this point I don't see a lot of evidence that SM really needs the mop.But to be fair, I can't think of anything so negative at the moment that would lead me to oppose outright.--cholmes75 (chit chat) 20:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to oppose.--cholmes75 (chit chat) 01:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral. This candidate clearly has great intentions and has matured a lot in his time here, in addition to his excellent contributions to our encyclopedia. However, I'd like to see some more edits from this candidate, and I also think that he could benefit from the extra time between now and his next RfA, if only to assauge the concerns of the community about his previous behavior. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 02:43, 10 November 2006 (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/Spawn_Man&oldid=1085985084"