Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/WereSpielChequers 2: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 123: Line 123:
#'''Oppose''' - your work seems primarily gnome work that would be best if you didn't have the tools to distract you from this. Anything else seems like you don't actually need this, and that you don't have enough experience in the areas outside of the occasional vandal to warrant it, let alone enough experiences in other areas that would led me to think that you would do more than simply just blocking and moving on, which is not really that great of an action. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[User talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 04:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' - your work seems primarily gnome work that would be best if you didn't have the tools to distract you from this. Anything else seems like you don't actually need this, and that you don't have enough experience in the areas outside of the occasional vandal to warrant it, let alone enough experiences in other areas that would led me to think that you would do more than simply just blocking and moving on, which is not really that great of an action. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[User talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 04:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' - per Iridescent. It's good for admins who want to work on the deletion of articles to understand what's involved in article creation. [[User:Dean B|Dean B]] ([[User talk:Dean B|talk]]) 08:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' - per Iridescent. It's good for admins who want to work on the deletion of articles to understand what's involved in article creation. [[User:Dean B|Dean B]] ([[User talk:Dean B|talk]]) 08:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
#per Iridescent. [[User:Giggy|Giggy]] ([[User talk:Giggy|talk]]) 10:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


=====Neutral=====
=====Neutral=====

Revision as of 10:45, 6 February 2009

WereSpielChequers 2

Nomination

Voice your opinion (talk page) (28/4/1); Scheduled to end 23:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

WereSpielChequers (talk · contribs) – Ok, I'm tired of reviewing great candidates and missing out on the opportunity to nominate them like I did with User:Somno, so I'm presenting before you one of the people I've been watching for a few weeks. About a month ago, I took a hint from WSC, and did a review of his CSD nominations. His work was exemplary... a person who did a great job with his CSD nominations. He didn't mistag articles or abuse the criteria, this in my opinion is a huge plus. CSD is an area where we need admins who adhere to the policies and not fly off the cuff... it is the area where an admin can do more undetected damage than the most egregious vandal.

The fact that he is a person who is engaged in CSD, and I'm sponsoring him should say something about what I think of what he does at CSD. I hate (careless) CSDers.

WSC's first RfA failed in large part because of an answer related to CSD! The question was somewhat a trick question, but I think the quality of his work there addresses that concern. The other reason why his RfA failed was because he was perceived as taking RfA as a joke. Well, it's been four months since his failed RfA---which is longer than the expected three month window. Since then he has addressed his weaknesses. In addition to these concerns, WSC has worked on a number of articles--in fact over 70% of his edits are in the article space! While he recently started using tools, interspersed in his edits are quite a few occasions where he is providing copy edit work. Eg manually improving the text, checking spelling/grammar, and generally improving articles. There were also some questions about his communication skills, I don't see that as a concern. He is very civil and sought out---including by some people from FAC.---I'm Spartacus! PoppaBalloon 04:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email)

This isn't going to be anywhere near as long as I'm Spartacus! (talk · contribs), but I offered to co-nom WSC a while back after noting his improvement since his last RfA. I first encountered WSC at his previous RfA, which I voted oppose on because I felt that he really didn't take adminship seriously (despite WP:NBG). Over coming weeks and months it became clear that he took the rejection of his application to heart, and started working hard to improve on areas others faulted on him last time round (such as I'm Spartacus' noted CSD reasoning). Just over four months on, I note a user who has an excellent understanding of deletion and other administrative tasks, as well as a firmly-placed article editor. Although we differ on some issues, such as the flagged revisions proposal, this is one user I would thoroughly be content with holding the mop. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 16:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Thanks, I accept.

Questions for the candidate

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: I'll start where I'm most experienced, blocking vandals such as the ones that I've reported to AIV and deleting pages at CSD.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
  • I search for easily confused words like Doe snot/Does not that cause errors that spellcheckers don't pick up. Cavalry Church & Calvary Troop were good hunting grounds, as were Thier/Their, Crowed/(Crowded, Crowned, Crowd), Planed/Planned, Panting/Painting, Mowed/Moved and Formally/Formerly. Some of these take dozens of minor edits to fix - "posses " has taken hundreds of edits as there were 603 when I first trawled them and only a fifth were plurals of posse.
  • For the last few months I've been increasingly active as a reviewer and critical friend at FAC, I've probably done more article collaboration there than in article talk space. Articles such as Pallid Sturgeon are the very best work we have and I'm proud to have made my small contribution to them.
  • I look for anomalies, such as duplicates, and I recently caught this which had been up for most of last year.
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: Yes I've had a few conflicts, but stress is a bit too strong a word. Wikipedia is a big place and if I don't feel comfortable in one part I usually go elsewhere. Sometimes I search for rudewords in user space, and dealing with the vandalism, and personal attacks I find that way gets me into more conflicts than typo fixing; for example this could have been stressful if I was editing in my real name.

Questions from Pedro

4. What are your criteria for granting Rollback? (this question is totally optional in getting me to voice an opinion)
A. The short answer is that if someone asked me for Rollback I would refer them to an experienced admin who does grant rollback. The long answer is that I have started to draft my criteria for rollback, but I'd want to talk it through with experienced admins before I granted or declined Rollback.
5. You say that you wish to work at C:CSD. What actions would you take on encountering the following as an newly created article tagged for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7

"PDO Pdf creator is a simple to use .pdf creation tool that renders all Microsoft documents into Adobe .pdf format. It has been reviewed by several trade magazines and is in use on hundereds of thousands of computers today."

A. Well the speedy is wrong as A7 specifically excludes Software "not to articles about their books, albums, software and so on." so as well as fixing the typo I'd take off the speedy tag, then explain why to the speedy tagger.
Yep. Mind you I'd argue there are two typos.... Pedro :  Chat  23:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd submit that there should be hyphens in "simple-to-use". Useight (talk) 01:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Chasingsol

6. In regards to Question 1. Other than CSD and AIV, what are the areas you believe need the most administrative assistance and do you plan on assisting in those areas?
A. Hi Chasingsol, interesting questions. Part 1 - "Unknown unknowns" I believe that I don't know what the greatest admin shortages are - there could be a huge shortage in an area that I've not been much involved in and I might not be aware of it. Part 2 - I have no specific plans to work in admin areas other than the ones I've mentioned in my answer to Question 1; however in my time here I have moved into many new areas and so if I get the mop, then after I've found my feet as an admin I will probably but very cautiously move on elsewhere.
Thank you for your response. Please see 6a. below. --Chasingsol(talk) 04:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6a. You have little recent activity in AN/I, none in dispute resolution and none in deletion discussions, areas that RfA candidates are often expected to participate. Can you explain why you have not participated in these areas?
A.
7. You support Flagged Revisions. Can you explain why you feel it is necessary from a policy standpoint?
A.

Questions from Davidwr

8. Optional humoouur question - every serious discussion needs a dose of humor - which is best left unanswered: Do you prefer Brittish or Ameerikan Spielling? :). OK, seriously, I'll completely ignore any answer you give to this and rate you on your merits later in the week.
A. I said this is best left unanswered Yeh wel I suspect I prefur fonetix if I nu it, but if GBS couldn't reform spelling I'm not going to try. I actually prefer American English for the lack of the silent u as in honor and color and in making a bit more use of the z key, though I sometimes wince at the extra "ations". But living in the real world I think we are stuck with our multiple versions of English, and I rather like our policy wp:ENGVAR

Question from Hermione1980

9. The account User:Joe Bloggs is created. You see the account vandalizing a couple of pages and follow a link to its userpage. The only text on the userpage is "Joe Bloggs is a mean, fat pig." Where do you report it — UAA, AN/I, AIV, or somewhere else — and why?
A. Well I probably won't report it, in my experience most attacks on user pages are not done by the user, so the first thing I'd do is check the history of User:Joe Bloggs and normally I'd find that someone other than user Joe Bloggs changed the text on User:Joe Bloggs to "Joe Bloggs is a mean, fat pig." If so I'd use Rollback or undo to get it back to the last unvandalised version, then if appropriate warn the vandal or vandals (I often find ancient attacks by longlost users or from school IPs that have had multiple subsequent blocks). If the page was created by the one vandal edit from someone other than user:JoeBloggs then I'd normally tag it as {{db-attack}}. "Mean, fat pig" is pretty innocuous compared to the sort of attack words I usually patrol for so I'd probably have a quick look at the talk page just in case Joe Bloggs is a POV champion for supersized and assertive people. But if we are talking about a three edit account - two vandalisms and the creation of User:Joe Bloggs as "Joe Bloggs is a mean, fat pig." Then I'd report it to UAA as "probably a realname but looking at the attack on the user page not the name of the creator"

Question from Lankiveil

10. Would you describe yourself as an inclusionist?

General comments

RfAs for this user:

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

Discussion


Support
  1. WSC and I are friendly, and he also does great work reviewing at FAC. Also have seen him at NPP; he deserves the bit. Ceran→//forge 23:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Supported the last time around and have only seen good things since. --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 23:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support as co-nom. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 23:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Answer to question 1, is awesome, you're planning on staying in areas that make you comfortable, support.--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 23:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - I remember you, my "RfA partner" from last time (our RfA's were closed one after another). I remember you then, and you've gotten so much better since. Cheers, iMatthew // talk // 23:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I looked over while the page was created (it was on my watchlist). No major problems. Administrators don't have to be superexcellent users, just solid ones. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 23:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. No, I'm Spartacus!!!!! WSC has made great improvement, and I am now trusting they with the tools. Xclamation point 23:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Definitely. LittleMountain5 23:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Nothing bad to see here. And we need more good CSD admins :-) SoWhy 23:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Sure. I supported the first time for one of the more brilliant self-noms I've read. Nothing but improvement since then. No doubts or reservations for me. Keeper | 76 23:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Weak Support (pending answer of my question). I thought they was one already, having seen them around in the usual admin-y locations. That being said, some of the UAA diffs provided by Wisdom89 in the Oppose section have me scratching my head. "Alan Workman" is worthy of being reported? Was there some other backstory behind that username (along with the others in the diffs below) that raised red flags? Hermione1980 23:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC) To heck with it, strong support for clue, adequate response to my (probably rather unclear) question, general good impression I've gotten from the candidate, and sense of humor (don't you dare leave that behind :-) Hermione1980 03:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. After taking a sizeable random sample of his speedy tags and his AIV reports, everything that I saw looked good. I liked seeing this (admin only, sorry), he revisited an attack page that hadn't yet been deleted and courtesy blanked it. He also handled this well. As for the diffs raised by Wisdom, UAA was definitely not the place to report those incidents, instead the account should've probably been taken to AIV and the page taken to CSD. UAA is only for blatantly inappropriate usernames; accounts are not blocked solely for potentially being a real name. But, as you don't declare that you want to work at UAA, and given that those reports were good blocks, albeit for a different reason, I think you'll make a fine admin (but if you do end up doing some work at UAA, please keep my previous sentence in mind). Useight (talk) 23:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - per my comments in the "neutral" section. Euryalus (talk) 00:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support per User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards as candidate has never been blocked, has not had weak AfD comments in the same discussions as me, and has User:WereSpielChequers/Barnstars. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support - Balloonman likes his CSD'ing, my own random sampling shows appropriate CSDing, supports flagged revisions (i.e. is at least somewhat responsible). Seems like a sensible candidate. WilyD 00:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support, sufficient experience and thoughtfulness. Icewedge (talk) 00:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. I've seen this editor around, and have built a generally good impression of the work they do. However, I am left with questions regarding their understanding of what should be reported to UAA per Wisdom - however, all of the accounts mentioned were subsequently (rightfully) blocked. Assuming he will take the criticisms in the oppose section in a constructive manner (I'm confident he will), I have very little qualms about supporting him for adminship. Master&Expert (Talk) 01:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. Good candidate, won't break the wiki. Although, he might just do that if his FlaggedRevs are implemented... –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Weak support - Isn't going to break the Wiki, net positive. — neuro(talk) 01:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. Looks good looking through (a limited glance of) contributions and talk page archives (I like the My Badz archive ;P). Concerns per Wisdom89 are unfounded, see WereSpielChequers' response. Bsimmons666 (talk) 01:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Weak Support as per Neurolysis. TheAE talk/sign 02:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support for the same reasons as last time. I'm happy to see that there are no cat pix. :) Protonk (talk) 02:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. Seen him all over the place, always full of clue. Good call on not answering the Flagged Revs question! - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 02:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The question is in good faith in asking for some thoughts regarding policy, knowledge of which is important. It is not intended to stir controversy. --Chasingsol(talk) 03:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Question accepted in good faith and will be answered within 24 hours, apologies for not answering in sequence but I need to shift gears and think on that, especially with that "from a policy standpoint" twist at the end. WereSpielChequers
  24. Support. Erik9 (talk) 02:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Strong Support - I'm almost disappointed at the lack of cats. :) Just kidding. Anyway, I thought that you'd be a net positive last time, and you've only gotten better since then. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 03:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support I'm happy here (PS have we met at some meetup?) Majorly talk 03:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, yes, we were both among the twenty or so at Wikipedia:Meetup/London 13 so we've quite possibly met, and I seem to have since become a regular at London meetups so perhaps I'll see you on a second Sunday? WereSpielChequers 03:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support He's been here a while, makes good contributions to the project, appears cautious and deliberate. I trust him to be a good admin as well. --NrDg 03:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Wizardman 04:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. I liked him at the time of his first RfA, and have an even more favorable view now. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 04:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. I think Wisdom's oppose is valid, in that UAA was the wrong venue, but the end result was the same. You CSD work looks pretty good (even by my standards) and there's nothing wrong with wiki-gnoming as article work. Net Positive. Pedro :  Chat  07:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support again. I thought you were ready last time, you just got sunk by a lolcat! I have no concerns at all, you seem to be sensible and clued-up. ~ mazca t|c 07:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Really, really don't like the username, but I must support. Mainly due to the good experiences and cluefulness this user has, but also to at least partly balance those opposes. Good luck.  GARDEN  09:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support contributions all check out, and I seriously thought user was an admin already (didn't that old RfA pass?). Also per my RfA criteria Foxy Loxy Pounce! 10:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Provisional oppose pending an explanation. You list Pallid sturgeon as the sole example of your best work other than spellchecking; however, you have precisely six edits to this page, all of them minor. My usual "I don't insist on penning a featured article from scratch but I do think every admin should have at least some article writing experience" applies; I'm perfectly willing to be persuaded that you do have sufficient experience, but you need to demonstrate it; it appears to me as things stand that either you can't be bothered to list your contributions, or you really don't have any. – iridescent 23:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose - While you do not flat out state that you will be working at UAA, you have roughly 40 edits or so to the page, many that are recent, which, to me, indicates that you will likely work there in the future. Sorry, but if you honestly feel that these usernames [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] need to be reported and blocked, I absolutely never want to see you with the block button. Wisdom89 (T / C) 23:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note – you can't see, but I can; those were all accounts used to create attack pages bearing the same name as the username (e.g. "My name is xxxxx and I am a big fat faggot"). WSC might have worded it confusingly, but they were legitimate blocks. – iridescent 23:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I'll take that into consideration - however, UAA is not the proper venue at all for such usernames. Wisdom89 (T / C) 23:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    wp:UAA#Real names "You should not register under any name that would lead others to assume your account is associated with any person other than yourself." If someone creates a user account that consists only of an attack page in someone else's name then yes it breaches our rules. It isn't the most common sort of report at UAA but where else would they go? Taking number four as an example "probably a real name and if so a violation as not the name of the creator - see User:Pejman Bahagholi which I've just proded as db-attack" any suggestions as to how else I could have phrased that? WereSpielChequers 00:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I confirm Iridescent's note. Frankly, I never work at UAA so I don't know if it's the right venue to report this but who cares? It needed to be taken care of and it was so from where I'm standing it's a good call on WSC's part. I checked the first three reports and they all led to quick indef-blocks, all from the same admin (Kurt Shaped Box). Unsurprisingly, the admin never complained to WSC about UAA being the wrong venue. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy: when a problem isn't reported at the right place, people aren't told to go down to office 304B: the problem is just dealt with. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 03:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wow on Wisdom89 difs Oppose with regret, they are too recent to ignore. Secret account 23:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Secret, Four of those were judged good calls at UAA but this wasn't, I reported it as "Violation of username plicy because possible real name and judging by attack nature of the contribs highly unlikely to be the name of the creator". To be honest I'm still not sure why that wasn't considered an attack on "Jimbob", would you mind telling me why you think it was such a bad call for me to be troubled enough about that to report it? WereSpielChequers 00:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In looking at this particular account, the only revisions visible are on their talk page. Unless I am missing something, wouldn't it have been more appropriate to at least discuss with this person first regarding concerns? There were no warnings, no templates, nothing added to their talk page. Zero attempt to discuss Wikipedia policies. Removal of malicious BLP material is specifically allowed by anyone, which could have resolved the attack nature of the talk page but still allowed a discourse to occur. Requesting the block hammer from the beginning seems very WP:BITEy. --Chasingsol(talk) 02:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The deleted material is only available to admins but trust me, these were not editors that you try to reason with. The accounts were clearly malicious. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 04:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My understanding is that there is no deleted material for this user, unless it was oversighted. --Chasingsol(talk) 04:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Edits to deleted pages don't show up on the contributions list - that's why you don't see the edits that tag pages in the contributions list for speedy deleters. (good ones that is). » \ / (⁂) 05:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose - your work seems primarily gnome work that would be best if you didn't have the tools to distract you from this. Anything else seems like you don't actually need this, and that you don't have enough experience in the areas outside of the occasional vandal to warrant it, let alone enough experiences in other areas that would led me to think that you would do more than simply just blocking and moving on, which is not really that great of an action. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose - per Iridescent. It's good for admins who want to work on the deletion of articles to understand what's involved in article creation. Dean B (talk) 08:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. per Iridescent. Giggy (talk) 10:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Neutral leaning to support - a look through your CSD contributions didn't raise any immediate red flags. Having read your Q1 response, please keep in mind you won't always be deleting CSD nominations - there's always a fair few that are wrongly nominated or can be salvaged following minor rewrites or referencing. Given your recent focus on this area, I'm confident you'll be keeping this in mind - you might want to expand slightly on your Q1 wording re this point. Also, I don't expect FA's but some content work beyond cleanup is important - you mentioned some in your last RfA, can you give some more recent examples? Euryalus (talk) 23:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to support after review of FAC contributions. Your own content additions are comparatively few, but your FAC work demonstrates a pretty good understanding of the importance of well-referenced and well-written material, and a sensitivity to how others might feel about criticism of their work. Fine by me. Euryalus (talk) 00:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, it's probably worth noting that ~1/3 of speedy deletion nominations are bad noms, which don't qualify for speedy deletions (a guess on the fraction, but it's quite high. Bad G11s and bad A7s are rampant). I assume Werespielchequers knows this, but if you're only nominating, and not reviewing noms, you might not realise. WilyD 00:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification, you are saying that 1/3 of other people's noms are bad, not that 1/3 of WSC's are bad, correct?---I'm Spartacus! PoppaBalloon 02:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wily, yes I'm aware that a lot of new pages get nommed for deletion where my reaction is to fix a typo, move to capitalise the surname or welcome a newbie Talk:Bruce Goldsmith, gives one part of the thread where a recent world champion of a minor sport recently got tagged, Hangon, deleted, undeleted and still exists. Most of that rescue was actually done not by me but by the newbie (and a very quick Uturn by the deleting admin who deserves better than to be named here) but I remember edit conflicting with the newbie on the deleting admins page. WereSpielChequers 02:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. LOL 2 opposes for correctly reporting attack accounts -- Gurch (talk) 04:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's RfA nowadays, in an absolute nutshell.  GARDEN  09:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/WereSpielChequers_2&oldid=268893329"