Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SpuriousQ

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

SpuriousQ[edit]

Closed as successful by Cecropia 14:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC) at (60/0/0); Formal end time 09:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SpuriousQ (talk · contribs) - Nomination: Ladies and gentlemen, I am honored to present to the Wikipedia community, SpuriousQ, as a candidate for adminship. For several months, I have seen this user appear in my watchlist multiple times with their work to Paris Hilton. Although I haven’t had any interaction with SpuriousQ outside that article, I have actually seen them working in other sections, most often at AIV, where this user has more than 440 edits to. When it comes to article work besides Paris Hilton, SpuriousQ has worked on Nicole Richie, Kiwi Camara, and Kimbo Slice, and as a matter of fact, SpuriousQ has more than 6770 edits to the mainspace, and more than 12,500 edits overall. This user has also been active at the Help Desk, and has given some occasional input at RFCN. From my experience, SpuriousQ is a civil, decent, and hardworking editor, and I think this user will make excellent use of the administrator tools. Acalamari 16:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination from Riana: Acalamari has covered all bases really well, but I can't resist the chance to have my say too :) SpuriousQ has been contributing since 2005, but has begun editing more heavily since November of last year. During this time he's accumulated a lot of great contributions, and has shown himself to be a capable editor, a great vandalfighter, a superb communicator, and generally someone who can be trusted. For anyone still down with a touch of editcountitis, Q has about 12500 edits, well-distributed across the namespaces. He is a regular commentator at AfDs [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], the help desk, and RFCN, and is always polite, level-headed and conscientious.

SpuriousQ also has a very high number (449 at last count!) of edits to WP:AIV - no doubt the ability to block vandals, rather than create backlogs there would be extremely useful for everybody. He also has written some articles [6], [7], [8] - a great blend of article-writer and vandal-fighter. Enough to please everybody! :)

As for the paperwork: e-mail enabled, a clean block log, non-annoying userpage and signature.

Basically, this is a great, well-rounded, dedicated, and communicative user. If he gets the tools, it can only mean good things for us, and I see no reason not to give them to him. So, let's do it :) – Rianaऋ 17:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. -SpuriousQ (talk) 09:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate[edit]

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

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: For sure, helping out at WP:AIV and CAT:CSD, since a lot of what I do here is vandal reverting and new page monitoring. I also foresee myself fulfilling the usual duties like evaluating expired prods, dealing with unblock requests, closing or relisting discussions at WP:AFD, and whatever else comes up that I feel comfortable doing. I've requested content review undeletions, copy and paste fixes, and page moves before, and I'd be willing to provide those services to others.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: In terms of article-writing, I'm most proud of finding and adding quality references to articles, sometimes correcting misinformation in the process. Some places I've done this are Douglas Dedge, Adragon De Mello, Kiwi Camara, Serengeti, Jeremy Zawodny, Ryan Gracie, and iSkin (I'm also happy for having saved this from deletion). I've sometimes been able to expand upon or correct articles; examples of these are Rand index, Reflection attack, Kill (Unix), Mechanism (philosophy)#Gödelian arguments.
However, my most substantial effort has gone into recent change and new page monitoring, and I feel I do this competently and carefully. If I'm reasonably unsure that a questionable edit was actually vandalism/misguided, I may ask the editor or bring it up on the talk page. I also do quick Google searches for new pages that appear to be nonsense but may have some merit, for example, here. I think I have a very low rate of false positives when it comes to classifying bad edits, and I take care to revert to last good version, since failure to do so is a typical way vandalism slips by and goes long unnoticed.
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: Due to my patrolling work, I get a fair number of questions, complaints, or just plain insults on my talk page. I'm always happy to point people to the relevant policies and guidelines and discuss them further if necessary. I'll simply remove or ignore insults and try not to feed trolling, but if there's a semblance of a valid point or question mixed in, I'll calmly respond to that.
My most contentious conflict involved an editor who wanted to add information to Paris Hilton about some leaked home videos that apparently showed her using racial/homophobic slurs. Naturally, this was all over the Internet, but I could not find any non-trivial mainstream coverage about it. I reverted with a detailed explanation on his talk page basically saying we needed reliable secondary sources covering the incident, and he accused me of trying to remove all negative information from the article. I remained calm and professional in the somewhat heated exchange (Talk:Paris Hilton#people_constantly_deleting_any_negative_information), which culminated in the editor finding some CNN coverage that he added to the article.
Optional question from falsedef
4. A lone editor has taken it upon himself to continually delete large portions of uncited information on highly trafficked article, without discussion. Other editors are continually reverting the deletions. The lone editor has excessively exceeded more than 3 reverts in 24 hours. What actions are appropriate in response to the excessive deletions and reverts? Please note down any Wikipedia policies that guide your decision.
Well, there are several factors to consider. First, edit warring is bad, and the lone user should at least be reminded of this and urged to engage in discussion. Discussion should help make more clear whether the user's edits against apparent consensus have merit. Once discussion starts rolling, we can proceed to other dispute resolution avenues as necessary (such as WP:RFC), as outlined at WP:DR.
If it is clear the lone user should know better and is knowingly defying WP:3RR (they were previously warned or have a history of violating this rule), and has proven unwilling to engage in discussion, we should consider blocking under that policy. This would ideally induce the user to discuss the changes upon their return. Had there been more than a lone user, I would more strongly consider page protection to facilitate discussion.
If the deletions are of controversial material about a living person, we have to keep in mind WP:BLP (such material "should be removed immediately and without discussion"). In that case, the version without the material should be reinstated, with explanation on the talk page, and may be protected if it proves necessary, per WP:PROT.
There are also two simple cases I have not mentioned: 1) it is patently obvious that the lone editor is vandalizing, or 2) the other editors are vandals acting in a concerted attack on the page. In the first case, we simply block the editor after appropriate warnings; in the second case, it may be appropriate to protect the page against such an attack. Both of these cases are unlikely, of course, since it is a highly trafficked article.
Optional question from PrestonH (talk · contribs)
5. Why do you wish to be an administrator?
I like contributing here, and sysop permissions would enable me to do so in a greater capacity, as addressed in Question 1. As for why I keep contributing here, the English Wikipedia is an amazingly valuable resource, I find myself in agreement with the core policies, and there's always work to be done to sustain and improve it. -SpuriousQ (talk) 03:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Trumpetband
6. When is it okay to indefinitely block a user?
A.
There are several cases I can think of.
  1. The most common case is for vandalism-only accounts: an indefinite block is appropriate if it is overwhelmingly likely that only nonconstructive edits will come from an account if left unblocked. Sometimes this is more immediately apparent than others: e.g., a user's first or only edits are to vandalize user or user talk space, they express intention to "destroy Wikipedia!!" or declare "you can't stop me!!", etc. In more doubtful cases, where the vandalism is less blatant and there is a decent possibility of the account later being productive, I'd prefer a temporary block, and if the account continues to make bad edits after having been blocked, an indefinite block becomes a stronger consideration.
  2. An indefinite block is appropriate for accounts that have gone awry in some way, where it is necessary to block until confirmation that the issue has been resolved. This may mean user or bot accounts that are suddenly making harmful bot-like edits, accounts that have been apparently compromised, etc.
  3. Abusive sockpuppets in violation of WP:SOCK should be indefinitely blocked and the sockpuppeter account may also be, depending on the situation.
  4. Another case is a simple username block.
  5. Accounts may also be indefinitely blocked to enforce bans.
Optional question from AldeBaer (talk · contribs)
7. As you may or may not be aware, there is an ongoing dispute at Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks regarding linking to attack sites (i.e. off-wiki websites that attack Wikipedia editors). Could you outline your position on the issue? —AldeBaer 19:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

Support

  1. Support I offered a while back, but he said he wasn't ready. He definitely is now, and I have good faith he'll do a good job. Good luck! Majorly (talk | meet) 09:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Co-nom support. I have every confidence that Q will make a great admin. – Riana ⁂ 09:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - Good user from what I can tell. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support A model Wikipedian, would make a great admin. Good luck to you. — The Sunshine Man 10:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Great user. I agree entirely with the opinions in the noms. Will (aka Wimt) 10:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - every confidence. Addhoc 11:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - Excellent work. A prime candidate for demotion if that's what Q wants. Pedro |  Chat  11:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strong Support - A very good editor and would make a good admin..----Cometstyles 11:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - Without having any prior knowledge of this candidate, I am confident that anyone nominated by both Acalamari and Riana would make an excellent admin. Walton (alternate account) 12:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Longevity to be admired, shows true dedication. In addition, seems like a near-enough-to-model candidate. Daniel 12:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 12:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support, and insert witty wordplay here based on his username. Will (We're flying the flag all over the world) 12:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support, no obstacles. —AldeBaer 13:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. I would have gladly been a co-nom. Kafziel Talk 13:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Strong Support Should be of great help at AIV as an administrator. Nishkid64 (talk) 13:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support With Acalamari and Riana pwning most of my concerns with any admin candidate before I even got to the questions, which were exellently answered and displayed the maturity expected from a candidate, my only concerns were investigating the user's recent activity. Folks, he's apparently already turned down a nomination, over his own concerns that he thought he wasn't ready. Users with this kind of humility are generally the best candidates for the job. Cheers, Lanky (YELL) 14:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support I see nothing but positive things from this candidate. —Anas talk? 14:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. Looks good, I thought he was one. --Mschel 14:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support with a cliché thrown in for good measure. GDonato (talk) 15:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Riana nominee. Moreschi Talk 15:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Strong SupportGood User Great User.Arnon Chaffin Got a message? 16:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Strong support as the nominator. Once again, I am late to give my support to a candidate that I've nominated/co-nominated. :) Acalamari 16:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support - another one of those "WTF - thought you were an admin already??" cases - Alison ☺ 17:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Good counter-vandalism skills. – B.hotep u/t• 19:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support: Plenty of experience and edit summary usage is also excellent. Should make a fine administrator.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 20:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support, level headed and excellent at vandal mopping. Clear need for the extra toolkit. Kuru talk 21:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 21:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Yes, this is exactly what we need! Jmlk17 21:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Seems fine. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. support --W.marsh 22:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support, no problem. Trebor 00:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support, sure. -- Phoenix2 (talk, review) 01:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. RFA Clique #1 You're not an admin =O G1ggy Talk - Chalk 02:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "Clique" or "cliché"? —Kyриx 03:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    RfA clique - they're that group that sits around the benches at WT:RFA and makes fun of everyone else's clothes. Mean lot. – Riana ⁂ 15:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support --cj | talk 02:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support You come highly recommended and your work speaks for itself. JodyB talk 11:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support may need to review core policies for a refresher, but overall competent with no problems. falsedef 18:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Wow, I thought this user was already an administrator. It seems like I am constantly racing SpuriousQ over at RC patrol, with SpuriousQ usually winning. Would make a fine sysop. Do you ever sleep? —Ocatecir Talk 03:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support I see no reason to not give this user admin tools.--PrestonH(Review Me!) • (Sign Here!) 04:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. Good user. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Have seen this user around, no problems. Xiner (talk) 13:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Terence 14:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support per other supporters. Captain panda 19:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Joe I 05:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Per Riana. Dfrg.msc 08:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. S Everything I was about to say... is already said. --Kzrulzuall Talk• Contribs 10:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support per above. PeaceNT 16:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support Nothing left to say :-) —METS501 (talk) 23:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support, Spurious deifnately has the capacity and need for sysop tools. Nothing left to say! *Cremepuff222* 00:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Non-spurious support per candidate's good overall record. No concerns. Newyorkbrad 01:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support per all above, great user. - Zeibura S. Kathau (Info | Talk) 04:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support Should make an excellant admin. Davewild 16:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Rettetast 20:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. I think my evaluation can be best summed up by a quote from the nomination ... "this is a great, well-rounded, dedicated, and communicative user". Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 00:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support --Húsönd 03:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support - No concerns. --Random Say it here! 19:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support per Riana and Acalamari. Sarah 04:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support I like the answer, good luck! --Trumpetband 13:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support -- Judicious temperament. Lots of experience which is well-rounded. --A. B. (talk) 18:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support looks good to me. James086Talk | Email 00:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. Zaxem 01:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

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/SpuriousQ&oldid=1089265753"