Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Spartan-James


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

Spartan-James
Final (10/22/6); ended 09:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

- Alright, he's only been here since June 12th, but Spartan-James is a blessing to Wikipedia. He has made nearly 5000 contributions to this site in his short membership here, this includes almost 200 reports to the WP:AIV! He makes 20-40 contributions a day using twinkle. I think this shows just how dedicated he is. He's like the new RickK. He's been here for only a short time, but he would be an incredible admin. Do Wikipedia a favor. Make Spartan-James an admin. Cheers, Je tL ov e r  (talk) 21:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I accept this nomination. Sp art an- Ja mes  06:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
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: I am primarily here for anti-vandal work and general upkeep. I do the usual rounds, patrolling the recent changes and also using the irc channel.  Although, I'm not too familiar with how to work with listing pages for speedy deletion(meaning what do I put on the creators page).


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: Well, since most, if not all of my contributions here at Wikipedia are reverts and anti-vandalism, I would say that I personally gain much satisfaction from reverting vandalism to user pages. I also enjoy attempting to beat admins and bots to large edits.


 * 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, when I started out, I did kind of "ruffle a few feathers", but I learned when and when not to revert certain things. Usually, if I screw up and I don't catch my own mistake, hopefully the user whose edit I reverted will calmly voice his/her opinion on my talk page and show me the error of my ways.  Anyways, usually, when users cause me stress, I usually consult administration or staff on how to proceed.  While in real life I seem to have a short fuse, I find that I am far more refined when it comes to my etiquette online and I am not ashamed to admit when I am wrong; however, mostly I can resolve the matter in a single message.

Optional question from HiDrNick


 * 4. How do you feel about Category:Wikipedian administrators open to recall?
 * A: I absolutely feel this is necessary. It's the same principle as renewing your drivers license every so often, just to show that you retained the knowledge the first time you took the test.  Just because people are voted admins, doesn't mean they will be admins from now on.

General comments

 * See Spartan-James's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.


 * Links for Spartan-James:

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

Discussion


Support Oppose
 * 1) Support Simply because an editor fights vandals instead of writing articles does not mean that said editor should not have adminship. With activity at this level, any experience concerns can be dealt with extremely quickly. Captain panda  19:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support User fights vandals but does not push a particular POV so okay and has contributed heavily in the last 2 months showing he has fast learner.Harlowraman 20:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, using an automated tool to achieve all those edits doesn't show he's a fast learner of anything other than Twinkle. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 20:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Nom support Cheers, Je tL ov e r  (talk) 21:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Weak support he has shown he is at least adept at fighting vandals. -Icewedge 21:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support changed from neutral. You know what... I say give it to him. As much as I would prefer to see some mainspace participation and possibly some other administrative activity, I can't understate the good work that this user does. He is among the best RCP'ers on the project and his ability to work with AIV can do nothing but help Wikipedia. Trusilver 21:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Per captain panda - you said it exactly. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 22:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - I know I'm supporting against a consensus here but the fact that someone dedicates most of their time to vandal fighting opposed to article writing doesn't mean they are somehow less important. Vandal fighters must know policies or else it would be very difficult for them to actually accomplish anything. Vandal fighters are probably the most skilled navigators through wikipedia as they come into contact with all sorts of pages on a daily basis. This person has 185 warnings to AIV, which is extremely high in my opinion. Wikipedia wouldn't be wikipedia without people who write articles, however Wikipedia wouldn't be much of anything either if there weren't people like this who dedicated so much time to vandal fighting. Giving someone who spends this much time vandal fighting the tools to block vandals quickly would only benefit. This person seems to know the procedure in issuing warnings and I don't see them abusing the tools.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 22:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Strong Support - Wow..Wikidudeman has summed up all that I was going to say and more..We Don't need only article creators on Wikipedia, we also need those that protect those articles and believe me an Admins Job requires Article protection vandal reverts and vandal blocks, not article creation as a priority..He has very less experience but he makes it up with determination and Trust..we need more admins like him..Good Luck..-- Cometstyles 23:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support I've edit-conflicted a few times before. :) Acalamari 23:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support A great vandal fighter who seems to have been doing much work as an anon, so we can see he has expierence.Marlith  T / C  02:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong Moral Support - Moderate Actual Support. Your activity level is incredible. Your dedication is totally demonstrated. The problem is we have a new phenomenon taking over from editcountitis which is months-contributing-itis .... and I'm afraid I'm guilty of it too. You just can't get a full balance in such a short time period. Per many of the above, vandal fighting is an excellent and valued contribution. As I've said before, if we never wrote or expanded another article the 1.9 million we have would be valuable for years. If we stopped reverting vandalism and spam the whole encyclopedia would be unreadbale rubbish within weeks. However your honesty in Q1 re: Speedy deletion shows you are not yet ready for the tools - I would sugest a withdrawal per WP:SNOW, keep up this excellent, valued and extrodinary dedication and re-apply soon (2-3 months is common after one RFA) - if you keep doing what you are doing I'll be delighted to offer my un-conditional support at that time. Very Best. Pedro |  Chat 07:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak oppose. Not to diminish the user's contributions - he looks to be a very valuable contributor - but there's not much to demonstrate this user is ready for administrative duties.  Vandalfighting is excellent but doesn't show much knowledge of policy.  Edits to the project space are too thin and too specialized (almost all to AIV) to judge this user's comprehension of general policies and guidelines.  I'm also hard pressed to find any substantive edits to mainspace, just a lot of reversions.  Don't get me wrong, the candidate appears to be a wonderful vandal fighter - but admins are also editors.  Just not ready for the mop. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 17:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) I'm sorry, but I've got to oppose at this time. You've only been here for 6 weeks which isn't long enough to show how you are a trusted member of the community. An administator must have good commnuication skills and I see very little interaction with other users to show how you handle yourself in disputes. I would recommend taking a step back from the vandalism reversions and get involved in some debates, both article and policy debates - it will give you a far deeper understand of how wikipedia works, and to be honest, it's more fun. Take this advice, and you have the potential to be a good admin candidate in the future.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  17:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) As Ryan and Arkyan said, although you have made many valuable contributions to the vandal-fighting side of Wikipedia (which is important), you have not yet demonstrated enough of a general understanding of policies. Keep doing what you're doing, broaden your contributions, and a future RFA will have a better chance at success. Flyguy649 talk contribs 17:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * In addition to my above comments, seven weeks worth of contributions is insufficient, in my view, for adminship. Flyguy649 talk contribs 23:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Dang! I've never seen so many vandalism reverts. Almost all of your edits are automated vandalism reverts. Don't get me wrong, vandalism reversion is excellent, but you haven't done anything besides this. There is no way we can evaluate you and see if we can trust you with administrator rights if you have never added content to an article or engaged in a discussion regarding an edit war. I don't see much participation with speedy deletion or XfD's, so I don't know if I can trust you with the ability to delete pages. I suggest you withdraw, work on these things,and try again later. -- Boricua  e  ddie  17:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Administrators are expected to know, understand, and execute Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Automated edits don't do much to show a firm grasp of these concepts. Spend more time in the project namespace doing non-automated edits (such as participating in XfD discussions) so we can get a better sense for where you stand. Your contributions are invaluable, but I just can't get behind a candidate that shows no actual working knowledge of how to perform as an admin. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 18:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose: Let's just say, I seen better. Run<font color="#1560BD">eW<font color="#0000FF">i<font color= "#00008B">ki      777 18:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "Please keep critisism constructive and polite."  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  18:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I hardly see how this is a valid reason to oppose. I don't think you'd make much of a better candidate than James, RuneWiki. Sebi  <sub style="color: darkgreen;">&#91; talk &#93; 08:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Unfortunatly, I have to oppose this rfa at this time Spartan. I've seen you quite a lot of times reverting vandalism, but I would suggest that you spend more time getting familiar to the policies and participating more in to the project space other than AIV. --H|<font color="blue" face="vivaldi" size="3">H <font color="blue" face="Times new roman" size="3">irohisat <font color="orange" face="Times new roman">Talk 18:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Remember this isn't Vandalfightpedia. <font face="Verdana" >T Rex  | <font face="Tahoma">talk  18:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I wonder how the encyclopedia would fare if every vandal fighter decided they were sick of being told they aren't "real" contributors and decided to take the month off. Trusilver 21:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Badly, IMHO, per my rational in my (moral-ish) support above. Pedro | <font style="color:#accC10;background:#0000fa;"> Chat 07:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose While your contributions to the encyclopedia are great and very much appreciated, I agree that you need to broaden your horizon by getting involved in other aspects of the encyclopedia, show that you know the policies and guidelines, and gain the collaborative experience that is not only necessary for a successful admin, but also to show how you work with others and deal with various situations. Best regards, <font color="6A5ACD">Lara <font color="FF1493">♥Love 19:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per Boricaeddie.Politics rule 20:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Great efforts so far but it's just too soon. Keep on truckin' tho! - eo 20:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose A fine contributor indeed, but I think this is a little too soon. He needs more time. And vandalfighting is not everything. ;) --  Gravitan ( Talk 21:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose Like others have said above, vandal fighting is not the be-all and end-all to adminship. Mainspace contributions are welcome too, as well as XfD discussions in the policy space, assisting at the help pages, etc.  You never know what an editor is going to ask of you, so being well versed in a lot of techniques and processes is a bonus, and knowing where to find the help articles for those of which you know little is good too. (aeropagitica) 21:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose and recommend withdrawl, too inexperienced, needs some good article writing and WP:XFD participation, btw, RickK was an article writer as well. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 22:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Why I nominated James: So he could help Wikipedia more. Would he abuse the tools? Of course not. He would help Wikipedia much more. Cheers, Je tL ov e r  (talk) 23:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Per EVula.  Daniel →♦  23:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Your vandal fighting is great, but I think that you need to participate in different areas as well (ex. WP:XFD )
 * 3) Try again in a few months! -<font color="red" face="georgia">Lemon <font color="orange" face="georgia">flash talk  01:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose, I would advise that you do some RfA's and some XfD's. Antivandal work is AWESOME! However, little else has been done. You must be more well rounded. Sorry. <font color="Blue">Marlith  T / C  04:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose per EVula. — Bob • (talk) • 04:49, August 1, 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose — Wow, 5,000 reverts!? That's like, erm, so incredible! ;-) It must of been painfully hard work. But where are your actual contributions!? There's more to Wikipedia than repeatedly clicking "revert". Matthew 07:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose - WP:ENC. No article-writing contributions makes it hard for me to judge how you'd interact with users who DO write articles. This would be important in a conflict, or when you are entrusted with deletion/protection tools that require at least some knowledge of article writing to understand relevant policies (e.g. notability). – Chacor 08:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose - I feel you need a much broader experience & experience at article creation and editing is important, too, to gain valuable perspective as an editor. Admins are article editors, too - A l is o n  ☺ 08:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Neutral – undoubtedly, an excellent user. However, I'm afraid James hasn't been on Wikipedia for the trust factor that is essential in a candidate to be established. Perhaps some participation in XfDs (e.g., MfD, AfD, etc...), and some article writing (or even Portal development) would, for my part, help this user to gain a solid grounding in Administrator functions, as well as serve up Community trust. For now, however, I can't support this RfA - perhaps in a few months, but for now I simply think this Request for potentially damaging functions is a little premature. Keep up the good work - I'm sure you'll make a fine Administrator one day ~ Anthøny  19:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral - per AGK/Anthøny. Spartan-James has done good work so far against vandals and trolls, but needs about two months' more experience. Bearian 19:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral He's an excellent vandalism fighter and I enjoy the hell out of working with him, but I think it's just a bit too early. Trusilver 21:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral. Per many above. Outstanding enthusiasm and dedication, but what's the rush? More seasoning and some broader involvement in the project and we'll see. No prejudice against voting support at some point in the future.  A  Train ''talk 23:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral. Still too new, would definitely consider in future, though. --Fire Star 火星 02:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral. You have a whole lot of good quality edits, but you've been here a very short time.  I'd definately vote for you in the future.--<font color="#00FFFF">Kk  r <font color="#0000FF">ou  ni  02:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral Some more content and discussion and you'll be there. Recurring dreams 09:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.