Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Spongefrog

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.

Spongefrog

[edit]

Final: (9/20/3) - withdrawn by candidate, closed at 19:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC).

Nomination

[edit]

Spongefrog (talk · contribs) – How can one describe a user such as Spongefrog? He's helpful, he's patient, ... mostly he's just so damn funny. He carries a lighthearted tone on every article he works on, and it's impossible to make him genuinely mad. He's just easy to work with.

Spongefrog has made nearly 7000 edits since he first joined in February. He's made a lot of good contributions to AFDs, and he actually does a ton of good work editing articles. A full report on his edits using Soxred93's tools can be found here.

Spongefrog has helped promote two GAs and one DYK. I feel he would be able to use the admin tools appropriately and they would help him with his work in AFD. A little insignificant Talk to me! (I have candy!) 22:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:Yeah, I accept, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 09:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

[edit]

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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: Some will probably in the deletionary (is that the right adjective?) sort of work. I'd like to help cleaning out the backlog that sometimes crops up at Speedy Deletion Candidates. And a big chunk would be vandal-fighting. AIV backlog and such.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Probably my second GA, I did most stuff there. I've expanded a few sub-stubs too. That's about it, really. Most of my work's minor changes, like grammar, cleanup, (wikignoming etc.) AfD, and vandal fighting.
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:Well, yesterday I got into a slight predicament with Jakkinx (talk · contribs) (read all about it on the talk pages). Pretty minor stuff tho. In my early days I got a couple of WPMYSPACE warnings. Oh, yeah, I was once blocked (not directly, it was an IP rangeblock). It doesn't show up on my block log, but all I can say is it was a variation on WP:BROTHER. When I was new, I used to be horribly uncivil to vandals, even calling one a B*******. I don't do that anymore.
Additional optional questions from Bwilkins
4. Would you be willing to advise bureaucrats in private of any alternate account that you may have, or may create in the future if you become an administrator?
A:No, but I will advise everybody publicly now. Let me tell you I have a lot, but I forgot some passwords. When I was new, I made an account called NANANANANANABATMAN (talk · contribs). I was going to use it half as a username length test, and half to warn vandals without getting my userpage vandalised. I probably shouldn't have done that. I now have OtherSpongefrog (talk · contribs), used for editing in non-secure connections, but by the time I got round to editing in non-secure connections, I had forgotten the password - again. I should have written it down. Rather irresponsible of me. Remember, it was months ago and I was new. Anyway, now I have SockofSpongefrog (talk · contribs), for the aforementioned purpose, and Lord Spongefrog (talk · contribs), a doppelganger. I think that's it. If, for any reason, I make any in the future, I have no problems about telling anyone. I will probably advertise it publicly, or at the very least I will inform a 'crat, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 11:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional questions from AtheWeatherman
5. You mention above how you were excessively uncivil to vandals, and how this has changed. Could you explain how and how you will deal with future occurences of vandalism?
A: Well, now I use Twinkle. So I just use the appropriate template warnings. If it's after the last warning, I'll report to AIV, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 13:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional questions from Chamal N
6. Could you please explain what this was about? I understand it was a joke, but not everyone would have thought that way (as you can see from that edit). And you also seem to have been demanding barnstars from people who visit your userpage. I know these are "things of the past", but I'd like to see some explanation since this was only a few months ago.
A: That was a list of people who had visited my userpage without giving me a Barnstar. After a couple of people added themselves, I figured it was OK. I shouldn't have. I understand the policy on WP:UP now, so I wouldn't make a mistake like that again. I've toned down my userpage a lot since then. It really just provides basic informations.
Additional optional questions from GrooveDog
7. Under what circumstances would you keep a page at AfD when, by a simple !vote count, the consensus was to delete?
A: That's a tough one. This could fail my RfA. Well, if the delete votes were bad reasons (i.e. WP:IDONTLIKEIT votes). I would keep it. I wouldn't just judge consensus by a vote count, I would review the reasons and decide the consensus on that. The !vote number doesn't matter much to be, it's the content of the !votes. If ten peopl !voted delete for an irrelevant reason, and only one !voted keep for a good reason (i.e. s/he provides evindence that it's notable) I would keep it.
Question from Sandstein
8. Have you reached the age of majority in your jurisdiction?  Sandstein  12:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A: I'd rather not answer that. If you really think I must, I'll consider it, but I don't want to reveal too much about myself.

General comments

[edit]

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

Discussion

[edit]
Support
[edit]
  1. Support, yes, we do need more backlog cleaners. --Aqwis (talk) 11:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Has my trust. Pmlineditor ∞ 12:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong Support Spongefrog is an editor who can be trusted. He has a humorous way of getting things done, which is a big bonus. He has matured into an experienced editor, willing to help others. I have complete confidence that he will not misuse any of his powers, which I feel is the criteria to judge here. Rkr1991 (Wanna chat?) 12:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support as nom. A little insignificant Talk to me! (I have candy!) 12:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Good contributions and an easy going personality. Certainly. Warrah (talk) 13:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support I think we need more humorous admins who realize their responsibility and never push their pov And SP is one of the best editors out here--NotedGrant Talk 13:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Great editor, has been here since February, and has almost 7,000 edits. December21st2012Freak chat 17:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support good great editor, somehow manages to keep the majority of his edits on the mainspace despite a million edit to his talk page. Very deticated and all around impressive. (great sense of humor as well)--Coldplay Expert 18:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Enthusiastic and positive user, good contributions. Being an admin aint Quantum mechanics, I'm sure you'd do fine. RMHED 18:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
  1. Oppose Sorry. :( You said you wanted to work in the deletion category, but I see a few problematic AfD comments recently that show me you may not be fully aware of a couple policies that are truly vital to how Wikipedia functions. Things like this where you "mixed policies" is a little worrying, WP:RS and WP:V are crucial to how we build this project. Another few, recent (I'll link if asked) "per nom" comments that don't really help AfD. Clean block log, that's good, and your user talk seems a little myspacey at times. WP:NOTNOW for me, sorry. :( GrooveDog • i'm groovy. 12:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Comment sp's page seems to be a bit myspacey because some editors out here like him and edit his talk page for fun SP's edit stats clearly indicate that (most of) his edits are in the mainspace --NotedGrant Talk 13:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh? What does that have to do with it(at least the second part) Abce2|This isnot a test 13:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This has to do with the myspace thing sp does not indulge in Myspacing ,but replies to posts on his page (he'll make a courteous admin) --NotedGrant Talk 13:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I have seen your around the wiki quite a bit, and my general impression is that I am unsure whether your have the requisite maturity to be an administrator. NW (Talk) 13:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I've seen you around. I think you do some good work, but I get a sense that you have some maturity issues. Some of your AfD !votes can be disconcerting, as you mention "policies" but don't actually link to them (see examples) I think you need to think a bit more before you post things. If you do your best to think everything out just a bit more carefully (no paranoia, plz :) you'll be more than ready in six months. Hope to see you back here soon, ceranthor 13:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoops, I meant to also mention the PERNOM votes in the second diff. My apologies. ceranthor 13:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per NW. I have general concerns about maturity and WP:CLUE. This is mainly evidenced by a lot of MySpacing on your talkpage with a certain group of editors. To be honest, by now a person of admin potential would have backed away from repeatedly chatting with these users who have been warned about WP:NOTMYSPACE. It would also be good if you gained a bit more experience. I agree with Ceran that it might help to think through your actions/comments, too. Apply feedback from this RfA over several months, and you might be ready for adminship at that time. Best, JamieS93 13:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I agree with all of the comments above me. You're not ready yet. Sorry, iMatthew talk at 14:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per IMatthew.Abce2|This isnot a test 14:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose per JamieS93; maturity concerns. Tan | 39 14:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - Looks like that's my RfA down the toilet... Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 14:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the attitude that will gain you more opposition. iMatthew talk at 14:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I really just meant "I do not think my RfA will pass now". Didn't think it would have such a negative effect. I don't view it as win/lose. I see it more as an editor review, and if it's good you might get administrative rights. I will take these critiscisms on board. If I had come here in 6 months without this, I couldn't have adressed those concerns. I would have failed, but it would be in six months instead of now. Thankyou all for your Opposes, I value them more than the Supports, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 15:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Sorry, but I agree that there are significant maturity concerns. I'm also a bit concerned at the above comment, which seems to indicate that you view RfA as a strict win/lose situation. Please consider the advice you've received and wait six months or so before filing another request. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose - sorry as well. You look to be a good contributor but I share the concerns about maturity with some of other editors opposing. Please accept the constructive criticism received in this RfA and if it doesn't pass, come back and try again when you are ready to and you think that you have addressed the areas of concern. Camw (talk) 14:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Per Juliancolton. Stifle (talk) 14:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose for the reasons above. In addition, something seems fishy here, enough for me to not trust you. There is something too similar about your RfA and the one of the other currently open RfA's for User:Katerenka. There was some drama surrounding a group of possibly socking editors last week (which I followed through their unblock requests) who claim to be friends editing from the same IP's. You and Katerenka were both tangentally involved, which is no big deal, but it gave the appearance of you both being part of the same clique of editors who had been blocked. It makes me nervous enough to oppose you. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Am I expected to comment on this, or is it just an observation? Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 15:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A detailed explanation would probably be in your long term best interest. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am confident that Spongefrog is not a sockrunner, and I don't know of any reason why he might be. That is, I don't know why he would have a use for them, he's not an edit warrer. The reason he has an RFA here is because I pressured him into it. I'm sorry. A little insignificant Talk to me! (I have candy!) 15:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Explanation. What am I to explain exactly? Why I'm not a sockmaster? Well there are numerous conversations between me and T'Shael/Javert/Katarenka for instance. We registered accounts months apart, and I used to go to him/her for advice a lot. I would welcome a checkuser, you'll find that I live on the other side of the world from the other accounts you mentioned. And I don't know if there's a person alive who could manage the workload of Katarenka and another user all at once. That group of users you mention. They were new. I tried to help a couple of them to contribute constructively, which I think I succeeded in. I genuinely believed the recent events involving them was a misunderstanding, at least for one of the blocked users, so I tried to defend their case. Sorry, if I sound rude here, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 16:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose as per GrooveDog RP459 (talk) 15:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose Per GrooveDog and JamieS93. The maturity concerns are something I can't overlook. Removing myspacey material from both your userpage or talk page is a start. Also, badgering opposers might make more people oppose.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 15:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean exactly by "badgering" opposers? I'm not trying to argue or anything, but I'm not familiar with the verb, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 16:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Badgering is commenting every opposer and asking questions like "Should I respond to this" and making comments like "There goes my RfA".--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 16:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry about that, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 17:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose per GrooveDog, simply not ready yet. ~ Arjun 15:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose - Wikipedia is not a game or a social networking site; a review of candidate's talk page indicates s/he believes otherwise (example). In addition, we all change our minds, but I think a more carefully thought-out AfD entry could have waited the three minutes it would have taken here, so as to avoid potential confusion. A better understanding of the community's position on various policies is required for someone who will be implementing them. Also, sarcasm really doesn't work around here.  Frank  |  talk  16:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Pending an answer to Q8.  Sandstein  17:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose. Good contributor and helpful, but must oppose due to major concerns about maturity. -- Ϫ 18:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose (switching from neutral): I was rather hoping I'd see something that would cancel out the maturity issues, but after reading Spongefrog's comments at this RfA I think this is not the time to hand him the admin tools. Some more experience would definitely help. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 18:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. oppose - I do not trust this user. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 19:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose - Can I withdraw? Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 19:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
  1. Neutral I showed up here thinking back to some talk page material that made my question if you're ready for adminship. However, after a look at your contribs and answers I was ready to support, but after reading GrooveDog's comment I'm hesistant to support due to the "per nom" votes and policy mix ups as recent as today. I'll wait to support or oppose and will re-evaluate later on.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 12:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Opposing.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 15:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral Basically the same as Giants. Abce2|This isnot a test 12:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Switching to oppose Neutral: Sorry, but I can't say I'm satisfied. I'm also uncomfortable with the answer to Q7, which (to me) seems to imply that you would put a lot of emphasis on the number of !votes. I suggest you make your answers clearer and more detailed if possible. Will check back later. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 13:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - What?! Well, I tried to make it clear that the number of !votes doesn't really matter much, but I'll make them a bit clearer later. Dont have time right now, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 13:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
     Done, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 13:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral: Underneath all the humour and the mess he calls user space is a solid, serious editor, dedicated to the good of the encyclopedia. This can be difficult to spot, especially for editor's who have not previously dealt with Spongefrog, and is further obscured by a cluster of other editors who tend to hang around his talk page. Nevertheless, I think Spongefrog is admin material. But he is not ready yet. I am not overly concerned by his mistakes over policy, although this is serious it is easily corrected, any fool can go away and learn the policies by heart. What is more of a problem is that he lacks confidence and will often make a pronouncement and then immediately contradict it or doubt it in a following post. Confidence is only going to come with maturity (and doing your homework reading the policies). So yes, but not yet. SpinningSpark 15:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral. I really like this user, very friendly and humerous. I wish I was as witty! However, little too myspacey as mentioned in the opposes, and a little inexperienced, but if every user was like you, everyone would get along! :) AtheWeatherman 16:57, 24 October 2009 (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/Spongefrog&oldid=1142506264"