Misplaced Pages

While I have outlined some of the areas Spaceman has worked in, the more impressive part is how he engages in that work. SpacemanSpiff is an excellent collaborator and perhaps the best way to appreciate this is to read through this FLC nomination and this GA review to see how these (sometimes rancorous) review processes can be undertaken with a spirit of mutual respect and even bonhomie. A perusal of his talk page interactions will provide many such examples of collaborative spirit, communication skills, and a friendly but firm temperament. Again, I think, such interpersonal skills will serve Spaceman well if he is successful at this RFA.

Finally, to address the issue of whether he has use for the admin buttons: yes he certainly does! Please get him off my back and give him his own bit. :-) Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 00:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Co-nomination by RegentsPark Abecedare has perfectly expressed the reasons why SpacemanSpiff should be given the tools. He detects copyright violations, sniffs out socks, and keeps track of various pov warriors and somehow keeps all this in his head for quick retrieval (he is practically a database for these things). He works carefully and thoughtfully on creating content, actively seeking out peer reviews and following up criticism with good grace and thoughtful rewrites. As Abecedare attests, he can make immediate productive use of the tools and, if made an admin, won't have to waste time explaining things to brain dead admins! --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Accept, with thanks. -SpacemanSpiff 17:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages 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: I've been active in the PROD and AfD areas for a while, so that might be a decent starting point (I can see the questions coming, so maybe I should add that I don't have any intention of closing contentious AfDs right away! *joke*). Of late, I've also been active in battling POV on India-related articles and I'd definitely help out with admin tools in that area. I obviously intend not to use tools on any of these articles if I have contributed any content, except in cases of vandalism (doen't include content disputes and POV pushing), but there are many editors playing in this space who could do with some assistance, without having to go seek it on one of the boards every time. I'm also active on pages needing translation, and can take care of some Indian language articles easily. I would potentially help out at AIV and possibly AN3, but I have no interest in being active on ANI, UAA, Image deletions etc.

2. What are your best contributions to Misplaced Pages, and why?

A: I started off as an "at large" editor and after a while someone alerted me to the need for countering systemic bias. Since then I've been focused on creating articles (mostly stubs) related to women's cricket and Indian literature in English. I've created over 80% of the articles in Category:Indian women cricketers, including two Featured Lists. I've also created a good number of articles on Indian English books and a few other articles in the same vein; while not exactly great articles, I think these have helped in countering systemic bias. My personal favorite is R. K. Narayan, starting with "a mostly copyvio version", I improved it to GA standards; during the review process, I also managed to understand (at least some of) the differences between blogging and article writing! (Note: The DYK that Abecedare mentions above was just "bragging rights", courtesy of Harrias, as I created the article.)

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: As I'm active in the hotbed of POV problems in Indian articles -- caste, religion and language, it's difficult not to get involved in conflicts. My edit summaries are generally clear enough to signal the reasoning behind my actions. If I have to revert/undo more than once, I generally add a talk page message (exceptions are when I'm reverting a sock etc). If it goes beyond that stage, I contact (almost always) an independent editor (or post on WT:INB) to take a look. I might get irritated occasionally, but if I'm still involved in the dispute I do not let that affect my actions. On probably a couple of occasions, I've been a little careless/hasty with my comments after letting someone else address the situation (not attacks or abuse, and nothing to merit a WP:NPA warning or civility warning); in such cases I do apologize and defuse the situation (this is the incident I remember; on looking at the editor's talk page today, I find that he's been blocked as the sockmaster of one of the disruptive editors I referred to in my post). I don't see much changing in the future, except maybe being more successful at avoiding any careless comments.

Questions from ArcAngel

4. When should cool down blocks be used and why?

A: Atama's answer from their RfA captures my opinion on this pretty well and I do not want to plagiarize! Blocking an editor because they are angry or agitated is unnecessary and will most likely have the exact opposite effect, it will make matters worse when the block expires. However, if the editor continues to indulge in other activities like edit-warring, personal attacks etc, a preventative block can be issued. Although this may appear to be a cool down scenario, it really is to prevent disruption.

5. Do you feel blocking a user who has vandalized your userpage is a conflict of interest? Why or why not?

A: From a policy standpoint I would say that if the user has vandalized more than just my userpage (3 of 4 violations is in areas outside of my userspace) then there clearly isn't a conflict of interest. If most/all of the vandalism is in my userspace, there could be a potential conflict of interest based on prior interactions etc. However, from a practical standpoint, I would prefer that someone else deal with any kind of blocking related to my userspace, as this would negate any perceptions of COI.

6. What are your thoughts on CAT:AOR and will you add yourself to it? Why or why not?

A: I think it's a good idea in principle, but it appears to be too broad a category with multiple definitions of what recall is (My first opinion, I haven't seen the cat before). I went through a random few criteria/process links and found Bigtimepeace's criteria and process to be quite practical. I would add myself to the category and use Bigtimepeace's policy with the modification that I'd let someone else interpret consensus. As for my thoughts, I have a need for certain tools (page protection, blocking) and if the RfA were to succeed, the community entrusts me with other tools including the delete button, permission assignments etc. If I misuse or abuse either set of tools it is only correct that the community withdraws those tools from me.

Question from Triplestop

7. How would you close the following AfDs? Please answer even if you voted or intend to vote.

1. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of post-Ellen American television episodes with LGBT themes
2. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of male performers in gay porn films (5th nomination)
3. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mun Charn Wong

A: I'll answer based on the revisions above, and not looking at the latest.

1. I would not close the post-Ellen list. Looking at the discussion, I'm obviously missing some context as I really don't understand the significance of some discussion points. However, both keep and delete side participants seem to perfectly understand each other. There are many admins equipped to handle this, and if I were an admin, I would not be one of them. This is a situation I'd prefer to step back from and not make a mess of things, letting someone else handle it.

2. I would close this as a keep. The arguments on the keep side outweigh the concerns expressed by the delete side in my opinion; lists and categories can exist together and lists provide a navigational advantage, BLP concerns can be addressed through editing and trimming the list to sourced entries only. I would definitely add a closing note urging participants to watchlist the list and ensure that unsourced entries are removed and do not creep back in.

3. This one is a tricky decision, reading through the AfD I'm torn between keep and no consensus. I think the keep side has weighed in that obituaries by themselves don't fall under the NOTMEMORIAL category and that an article in a statewide business publication shows some notability. In addition there are the other bits and pieces of trivial and not highly significant coverage. However, there is a concern from the delete side that hasn't been addressed completely -- what has he done to achieve notable status? The arguments based on the top salesman award is perhaps not the strongest, but it's as good as that of a character in a book or TV series. On weighing these issues, I lean toward closing it as a keep.

I'd also like to add that I don't intend to close any contentious AfDs until I develop some experience in that area.

Additional optional questions from Coffee

8. If you were to close an AFD, on a BLP, (such as this), where there is no easily determined consensus how would you close it?

A. Heh, I don't think I've had such a question asked at an interview or through my many years of education! I think the argument for the significance of the CJR article is strong, but not so strong for the other sources, resulting in a consensus of borderline notability, but unclear on which side. Therefore a no consensus default to delete appears to be the best outcome. I'll add that, if I had participated in the AfD, I probably would have !voted keep, but that's not my reading of the consensus in this discussion.

9. What is your opinion on the current BLP policy, and what work have you done (if any) with BLPs?

A. I think the current policy is reasonable, I don't look at it everyday but refer it once in a while. I think I've written about 80+ stub BLPs (mostly women cricketers) and have taken care to ensure that all of them pass the WP:Athlete/WP:CRIN criteria, the few that are artistes, pass WP:Creative. I've made sure that every statement in the articles is referenced to reliable sources. A few that I created at the start of my wikicareer didn't have inline citations, but I think I went back and fixed them all. With these articles, there's basically no activity, so much so that when I had an edit conflict on one of them, I was really excited! Given that, I haven't had any problems in ensuring that these articles stay within our BLP guidelines. But in my other play pen -- handling the POV problems, you often see people being categorized into caste articles with no references, and then someone else categorizes them differently and so on. A classic example is Venkatraman Ramakrishnan where the subject's ethnicity was in constant flux. I only noticed this after the subject actually deleted that text with the edit summary "I'm the subject and I don't self identify this way" or something to the effect. These are some issues I try to address regularly (including monitoring coatracks/POV forks etc). I haven't actively sought out BLPs, but wherever they overlap my editing interests, I work on them.

Question from Hullaballoo Wolfowitz

10. In question 8, you indicated that in closing AFD discussions on BLPs "where there is no easily determined consensus," your practice would be "default to delete." This is, of course, a controversial matter with substantial support and opposition. But there has not been sufficient support from the community to implement this proposal. Did you really intend to say that you intended to use administrative authority in a way that contradicts the applicable policy? When (more generally) do you believe administrators should use their authority to act contrary to policies? (On the specific BLP question, it may helpful to review the Wendy Babcock DRV here and the deletion policy discussion here , although those discussions are rather long.)

General comments

• Links for SpacemanSpiff: SpacemanSpiff (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for SpacemanSpiff can be found here.

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

Discussion

Support

1. Looks excellent. No alarms showing here GedUK  17:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
2. Based on prior experience with him and the fact that we need more admins around here with off-planet experience. The Death Ray Zorcher could probably use a less inelegant name though. John Carter (talk) 18:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
3. Support: Similarly, based on experience with Spaceman Spiff he looks like a prime candidate for adminship. Harrias (talk) 18:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
4. He is a great asset to Wikiproject India. As the nominators mention, his work in fighting POV pushers in caste and language articles is tremendous. It is a thankless job - the caste POV ers are legion,relentless, use socks and IPs to edit war and are generally quick to take offense(i wont be surprised if some turned up in the oppose column). His work in AFD is also thorough and thoughtful - he takes extra care to assess the article before making his recommendation. And he has helped me out immediately when i asked for help. To fight the Zorg better, spaceman spiff should be given admin privileges.--Sodabottle (talk) 18:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
5. Strong Support SpacemanSpiff will make a great admin. Spiff's willingness to wade into some very contentious areas (POV pushing, AfD, caste related articles, etc.), always showing civility and with very good results, has been impressive. Upgrade his Death Ray Zorcher and give him the mop. Priyanath  19:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
6. Support per nom and excellent history.--Coldplay Expért 19:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
7. Looks not bad. The only drawbacks might be 6,5 months of wiki-experience (the more — the better, imho) and lack of crosswiki activity (well, ditto). — Qweedsa (talk) 19:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
8. Support - Quality editor, seems like a good admin candidate. –Juliancolton |  19:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
9. Always impressed with his judgment. - Dank (push to talk) 19:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
10. Absolutely! very impressive work, excellent. A8UDI 19:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
11. Support No concerns, yet. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
12. Support Have had nothing by excellent interactions with this editor and admire his knowledge and willingness to work against systemic bias. Schmidt, 20:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

    Support For someone with whom I have very little common editing ground, I have encountered Spiff's sig and opinions quite a bit. I find the opinions to be sound, civil, and showing a good level of WP:CLUE. Even this comment about my first GAN didn't bother me. A net positive to the project. No concerns about granting the bit. Plus, there is that great username. Jim Miller 20:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC) reconsidering due to "default to delete" answer against policy and consensus to question 8

13. Strong support YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 21:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
14. Support per answers to my questions, candidate seems knowledgeable in policy and so I can find no fault in giving them the mop. ArcAngel (talk) 21:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
15. Strong support - Excellent work fighting POV pushers trolling around Indian articles. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 21:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
16. Support a most suitable nominee. Crafty (talk) 21:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
17. Support - My interactions with Spiff have always been positive. A fantastic editor that will make a great admin. -- Atama頭 21:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
18. Support I don't have any concerns that would make me oppose. Everything else seems to be good. Elockid ·_Contribs) 22:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
19. Support Consistently impressive. @Kate (talk) 22:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
20. Support Clearly has the history behind them that the community can give firm trust in them.--TParis00ap (talk) 23:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
21. Support He discusses issues at AfD and with other editors about articles. I'd like to see you confine article discussions to article talk pages not raising issues at user talk pages, and spend less time discussing other users (focus: articles). But this is an area on wikipedia, Indian subcontinent articles, where it would be useful to have a good administrator. In addition SpacemanSpiff has a tendency to pay regard to input from others. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 23:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
22. Support - This user has a great history. December21st2012Freak (talk) 00:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
23. will make a good one. --CarTick 01:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
24. Support As someone said at my RFA, "I thought you already were one!" You seem to be quite the qualified editor, obviously knowledgeable about the ways of things here, and you're not at all likely to block Jimbo and delete the Main Page. Nyttend (talk) 01:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
25. Support. Woohoo! Spiffy for admin! SpacemanSpiff can handle the responsibility and I believe they will use the tools and the unlimited power wisely. The Indian section needs good administrators; issues quickly get contentious and editors even more quickly get overheated--but not Spiffy. As an honorary Tamil, I may be biased, but I have worked with Spiff, know them to be dedicated to the project, and have only praise to offer. Drmies (talk) 01:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
26. Support: I see his contributions a lot and I think that he does a lot of good work. Joe Chill (talk) 02:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
27. Support Good choice. Warrah (talk) 02:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
28. Support Wikireader41 (talk) 02:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
29. Always seems reasonable and mature. ceranthor 02:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
30. Strongest Possible Support (Treat this as co-nom): Worked with him on several occasions associated with WikiProject India. Very mature and helpful. All the qualities for an admin. Ha, the other co-nominators have said it all. All the best ! -- Tinu Cherian - 03:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
31. Support Excellent user. Triplestop x3 03:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
32. Support The fact that he's only 7 month here and already a strong nominee is impressive. I like meteors and I wish him success as an admin.--Gilisa (talk) 06:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
33. SupportI've seen Spaceman Revert vandalism and he is really good at it--NotedGrant Talk 06:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
34. Support - Good Luck! Smithers (Talk) 07:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
35. Strong support - Tinucherian and Aaroncrick said everything I wanted to say! Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
36. I see nothing wrong with this user, go for it! –BuickCenturyDriver 07:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
37. worth a trial with the tools. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
38. Support Per Gilisa. Also, near flawless edit summary usage ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 07:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
39. Strong support - Tremendously valuable editor. This editor with the tools would be a great asset. Shadowjams (talk) 08:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

    Let me add on, Spiff's got 800 patrols for 12,000 edits, putting him at around 6%, which is very respectable. Shadowjams (talk) 10:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

40. Support So what if Spiff's only been here 7 months? Bradjamesbrown (talk) 08:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

    That was my reaction too Shadowjams (talk) 10:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

41. Support Good job BejinhanTalk 09:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
42. Support Sole Soul (talk) 09:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
43. Support Gizza 10:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
44. Support, excellent candidate from what I can see. --Taelus (talk) 12:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
45. Support - Great answers to my questions, I trust you with the tools. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 13:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
46. Support: looks like the project will benefit from the user having the tools. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 13:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
47. Strong support The answers to all the questions are quite lovely... SpacemanSpiff is undoubtedly trustworthy. The thing that should not be 13:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
48. Strong support I have seen little of SpacemanSpiff's edits but what I have seen till now impresses me. Has a great deal of maturity and commitment to NPOV-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 14:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
49. Support Secret 16:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
50. Strong support - as I continue to read, I'm becoming more convinced that this is a fantastic candidate, per many of the above who have stated it well. Thank you for striving to uphold NPOV. Your answers to the BLP questions (and comments, such as in the Neutral section) are thoughtful and intuitive. JamieS93 17:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
51. Support If opposed by an editor with an unending appetite for deletionism, hypocrisy, gaming the system and acting without good faith, this request can only be viewed as a good thing. Magpie1892 18.48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)