Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Spinningspark

Spinningspark

Voice your opinion (talk page) (57/1/1); Scheduled to end 14:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

Spinningspark (talk · contribs) – It is with great pleasure that I introduce my final coachee... I started coaching Spinningspark in early November of last year. I was very impressed by his thoughtfulness and answers that he provided. I also liked the questions that he asked. I was debating a December or January nomination, when he made a major blunder. At the time Spinningspark was only able to edit WP a few days a week. He ran into what he thought was a case of vandalism and went to fix the vandalism. Unfortunately, when he fixed it, he actually reverted to the vandalism that somebody else was trying to fix. When another user tried to intervene, telling SpinningSpark that he was wrong, SpinningSpark initiated a Check User and a Sock request against the other user. These actions were clearly incorrect, and were compounded by the fact that they occurred just before he was unavailable due to real life activities. As such, he was not able to reverse his own allegations when his error was pointed out to him and the seriousness of the issue was magnified by his apparent non-responsiveness. A summary of the events, including a statement by the accused party, can be found here. I told him then that the issue was severe enough that it probably ruined any chance at an RfA for several months---and that there was nothing we could really do except wait and let time heal the issue. A person should not be permanently barred for an isolated mistake half a year ago. EDIT: ironically about a week after this incident, the person SS requested a sock investigation on was blocked as a sock in an unrelated case!

I'll be honest, I lost some of my interest in coaching and didn't pay as much attention to Spinning as I should have, but he knew that he needed time to distance himself from his blunder. It has been 5 months since the incident. Many people run for RfA 5 months after joining WP, Spinning has been active on WP for 18 months and has just over 10,000 edits (including deleted edits.) 45% of his edits are in the article space, but he also participates in various reference desks, help desks, and editor assistance areas. He has almost 600 edits in the new file (formerly images) section, which indicates a strong grasp with images. Admins familiar with images are always a positive!

When I reviewed his edits while preparing for this RfA I couldn't help but notice how SpinningSpark has matured into admin. When I coached, my goal was to get people to act and behave like admins. The having the buttons is immaterial, one can be an admin without the buttons. SpinningSpark is such a person. He has also shown tremendous patience. Many people have a stereotype that people who seek out coaching want a fast track to the buttons, SpinningSpark didn't. Right from the beginning he indicated a desire to do it right... he has. I do not see him being one of the most active admins at , but rather contributing as it evolves from his participation in the various help desks/reference sections/editor assistance where he works.

---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 03:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept the nomination with great pleasure. SpinningSpark 12:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I would like to thank I'm Spartacus for his nomination. Regarding my error of judgement in December, I offer no excuses, but ask only that you believe that I have learned from it (which I have, big time) and note that, although belated, I did finally make the right decision.

After several years of using Wikipedia, I finally plucked up the courage in 2007 to actually correct an error in a physics article, but only after weeks of doubt over whether or not I was actually right (at the time I was firmly convinced that there were no errors on Wikipedia), and only finally making the correction after another editor agreed with me on the talk page. Still, I was not heavily editing Wikipedia, there seemed to be articles already on everything I knew about, and even when I could not immediately see a relevant article that was only because I did not know how to search properly - or at least so I thought. In any case, I rarely looked up articles on subjects I already knew about, I looked up articles to learn something. Then, quite by accident, I discovered an area of Wikipedia that had practically zero coverage but which I had a great deal of knowledge and experience having worked in that little corner of telecommunications for several decades. I wrote one article - and then started churning them out - and suddenly found that I was completely hooked. This place is a drug and I am a junkie. I write on a wide range of subjects but it still stays centred on telecommunications and electronics. More recently I have slowly become more involved with the infrastructure of Wikipedia and it has become clear that I could make use of the admin tools. I hope you give them to me. SpinningSpark 06:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

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 am currently very active on Wikipedia:Editor Assistance/Requests. While this is mostly geared to helping editors, it does require the occasional administrative intervention on a regular basis. As my nominator has stated, administrative work will probably grow organically out of this rather than aiming at a specific task. However, one area that particulary attracted me to admin work is cut and paste move repairs. This regularly comes up with my own articles where I have constructed a substantial article in user space but there is already a stub or small article in mainspace so a simple "move" is not possible. If I were to gain the ability to fix these in my own articles I would also assist others with a similar problem. I am also willing to attack most administrative backlogs whenever required.

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

A: I don't know about best contribution, but this is my best ever edit summary. In terms of article review status, I should perhaps mention that I wrote Otto Julius Zobel and later brought it GA status. Small edits too, though, can be important contributions. I am particular proud of finding this previously overlooked (overlooked by Wikipedia that is) effect in the works of Albert Einstein.

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: I have never had a serious conflict with another editor (vandals and trolls aside) besides the incident already mentioned in my nomination. There have, of course, been occasions when there have been disagreements, but I will always go to the talk pages when this happens - experience tells me it is better to do this sooner rather than later. Occasionaly, I hsve raised an RfC to resolve an issue, but these are very much the exception and I am not at all sure they should be classed as conflicts - merely a disagreement that requires the opinion of others to move on.

Optional Question from your nominator

4. Five months ago you made a mistake and the mistake was compounded because you were unavailable to edit from Monday-Thursday. Are you still unable to edit on those days and if so, how will you prevent similar issues from arising should you become an admin?

A. That is still the case, although the period of absence is not as predictable as that and it does not happen every week. I can be offline each week for between 0 and 5 days. I had previously indicated to my nominator that I expected this situation to change before my nomination and I would have a higher level of availability. I am still expecting this change to happen but sadly, real life has its own agenda. Currently, my peak editing occurs towards the end of the week and weekends and my minimum availability is from Monday mornings (UTC) onwards. As for mitigation, the first, and most important, thing is for me to stay aware that there is a potential problem. Having identified that my absence may cause a problem I have several choices, amongst which is to decline to pick up altogether a controversial issue which is likely to go over into the period of absence. In some cases it may be enough just to inform the other parties that I will not be replying for a few days. In other cases I would consider asking another admin to watch over the discussion while I am away. On the other hand, it is not every conversation on Wikipedia that is likely to blow up into a huge controvery if left unattended for a few days, even though ANI might give one a different impression.

Optional questions from User:Carlossuarez46

5a. A user creates a page for a web-company and the contents are no more than a link to its website and {{underconstruction}}, and another user tags it for speedy deletion; how long in its current state of construction would it be before you decided to grant a speedy deletion request?

A: The article meets criteria CSD 3a, no content, and so is eligible for speedy deletion. Whether I did so immediately or not would depend on the editing history of the creator. For a user with some history I would assume that they were about to create an article and wait at least a couple of hours for something to materialise. If a new user, it is more likely a misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. In that case I would first check that they are not actively editing right now, then execute the speedy delete, but I would take the trouble to explain on their talk page what they need to do and offer help. Deletion of such an article with virtually nothing in it is not a great loss, the only danger is to drive off a potentially useful editor by not explaining. I might also choose to research the notability of the company myself and the result of this could influence my decision. One further possibility on the character of the creator is that it is the work of a single purpose account here only to spam the wiki. Those cases will get no leniency from me.

5b. Would your answer be different if there were no link to its website, and the contents were only the underconstruction template?

A: The template really makes no difference, it is inappropriately attached to this article in any case. The wording on the template instructions includes "In general, this template should not be used for new articles with little content". My answer remains pretty much the same, just that spamming is slightly less likely to be the motive if there is no external link.

5c. Editor1 adds relevant properly sourced, but controversial, material to an article and Editor2 removes it; Editor1 readds it; and Editor2 removes it again, would a re-add by Editor1 be a 3RR violation? If Editor2 removes it again, would Editor2 be in violation of 3RR? Is anything different if one of the deletes was made by Editor3?

A: The first edit by Editor1 is an edit, not a reversion and does not count towards WP:3RR. Re-adding by Editor1 would not be a 3RR violation but a further deletion by Editor2 would be. However, I am not very interested in legalistic counting of offences here. Both editors need to be warned right now not to edit war and pointed to the talk page. The difference made by Editor3 carrying out one of the reversions is that 3RR is accumulated personally, not by a group on one side of an argument so Editor2 would then not be in breach of 3RR with a further reversion. However, I would bear in mind that organised tag team might be going on. In any case, Editor3 makes little difference to my assesment that this should be taken to the talk page instead of annoying everyone else by filling up the article history with edit warring.

5d. Is your view of consensus at deletion discussions different than your view of consensus in article writing - or is majority rule more appropos with respect to the latter?

A: Simple vote counting is never a good idea, at least for an encyclopedia, when it comes to decisions on content. To do so leaves us open to vote-stacking, sockpuppetry, external canvassing and other undesirable practices. There is a small difference, however, between deletion discussions and article writing. In a deletion discussion there is little room for compromise; keep and delete are binary choices (there is merge, but this is often little more than a thinly disguised delete). In article writing there is some possibility of accomodating two points of view without compromising the article's integrity. Indeed, it may be essential to this for balance if the article's sources actually disagree.

Optional question from Quadell

6. Tell us about a time when consensus didn't go the way you wanted. How did you react?

A. My reaction to a situation where consensus is clearly against me with no realistic possibility of persuading the opposition is to walk away. There is really no point in doing anything else, even if I feel I am still right there comes a time when you must admit defeat gracefully. However, in trying to find you an example, I have struggled to come up with a clear cut case where the result has not been at least a compromise I can live with or that I have actually seen some merit in the oppositions case. Even at AfD I can find in recent cases only this weak example and I suspect this does not really answer your question since AfD closure draws a line in a way in which a dispute in the article space does not. To find something in article space that seriously did not go my way I had to go all the way back to July 2008 where I had opened a RFC in the Newton's laws of motion article following a disagreement that was threatening to turn into edit warring. Although substantial numbers of editors were agreeing with me the consensus seemed to be going the other way so I closed the RFC then left the topic alone. But even this is not a clear-cut example because what is not at all obvious from the talk page discussion is that while this was going on (and an awful lot of editors took part) entirely different editors had been changing the article to something I felt was a fair compromise between the two positions so I really felt that continuing the dispute was unecessary.

Additional questions from Jennavecia

7a. What is your view of the current BLP situation? Do you believe there is a problem or do you believe that we are doing a sufficient job in maintaining our BLPs and protecting the subjects of them? If the former, please explain how significant you feel the problem is.

A: I think that the problem is pretty much represented by this complaint I dealt with at EAR. The complainant says "Ms. Stewart and our staffs do not have the time to read every day to see if someone has tried to edit what is already there with the kind of lies, attacks etc. that were their at the beginning". Sadly, neither do Wikipedia editors for the vast majority of minor bios. A high profile politician will be watchlisted by many, but cases such as these of a very minor politician may be watchlisted by only the article creator - or even no one. Yet we have a moral duty (besides any legal consideration) to protect our article subjects from attack. If we were a print media, the article is reviewed once, and then put out there. In our medium, constant vigilance is required, but this is not a reasonable expectation to put on volunteers. The complainant asks for the article to be deleted so that they do not have to watch it. If we do not find a way to guarantee that attacks are not inserted, or at least are not left, in articles it will become increasingly difficult to deny such requests.

7b. What is your stance on each of the following for BLPs?

1. Flagged revisions

2. Flagged protection and patrolled revisions

3. Semi-protection (liberal use or protection for all)

A1: I am going to reserve judgement on flagged revisions for now, I do not yet have a clear enough understanding of the mechanics of how they might work. You may find that I !voted against them in the poll but I have not checked back. I am not in principle against, but I want to see a workable proposal first. I have spent some time poking around in German Wikipedia trying to understand how it works over there, but have come away with some serious doubts and questions. Doubtless, there are some straightforward answers (which I may have found myself on German wiki if my German language skills extended beyond ordering drinks in bars) but at the moment I don't have them so it is "reserve judgement". One thing in particular that I was looking for was an unflagged revision which had not been subsequently deleted or amended. Despite inumerable random articles I could not find an example. This says to me that the German reviewers are keeping on top of the unflagged revisions. This is good for them but I suspect that that would not be the situation on the much larger English Wikipedia. So the difficult question, for me, becomes what happens to that unflagged revision as it slowly sinks lower into the edit history. If it forever remains undisplayed, I would see that as a problem, but that is not the case as far as I can make out; there is in fact a rather worse problem. It seems that the way it works is that if you flag a revision, you flag everything in that version as being ok. As I say, I could not find a clear-cut counter example but I think that's the way it works - someone here is sure to put me straight if I am wrong. For low traffic German articles, this is not so onerous a duty, but on English Wikipedia, I would not, for example, want to have to trawl through a couple of dozen recent IP edits before I felt safe to correct a simple typo. On the other hand, failing to flag it (presuming I am given that option) just makes the problem worse for the next guy. A further concern I had with German Wiki is that there did not seem to be any onscreen indication of whether or not the article contained unflagged revisions, but possibly I am not autoconfirmed on German Wiki and this will make a difference to what I see.

Request for clarification: So are you saying that you opposed a proposal that you do not understand? If it's just the mechanics you are wondering about, a working version is available on the Test wiki. A link is provided on the project page, I believe. I can find it if you are interested and cannot quickly locate it yourself.

No, I am not saying I opposed a proposal I did not understand. I am saying that I have no clear recollection of the proposal or how I !voted and have not looked it up. My current position I think is clearly stated above - I am undecided. To the best of my recollection, there were several alternate proposals for which polls were called for, I !voted in some of them, I read and understood each proposal before !voting. To the best of my recollection, the proposals were matters of principle and did not delve into the mechanics of operation. Thank you for pointing out this is running on the test wiki, I will look at it, but I am not going to make up my mind for the sake of providing an answer to this RfA. Sorry, you are going to have to make do with "undecided". SpinningSpark 21:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

A2: A flagged protection trial seems like a good idea to give everyone hands on experience of the workings of flagged revisions. I still reserve judgement as I had not heard of this proposal until this question was asked and want time to think about it. However, it is appealing because it is limited in scope, so is easier to keep under control, and is directed at the group of articles which need it the most. Patrolled revisions sounds to me like an altogther sensible and uncontroversial idea - very similar to the flagging used by WP:NPP.

A3: I am absolutely against widespread unprovoked semi-protection. Effectively, this is pushing out IP editors by making life for them here next to impossible. This would be a major departure from the Wikipedia principle of anyone can edit as stated in Wikipedia:Five pillars. If there is a case for throwing IPs off the project, then that should be addressed directly with a proposal that clearly has that as its purpose, not by backdoor instruction creep that drives people away in frustration.

Request for clarification: You say "unprovoked". Currently, liberal use of semi-protection is for articles that have been the subject of specific, lasting vandalism. Those with a history that indicates they are not heavily monitored. Additionally, the question is specific to BLPs, so even protection for all would not result in "throwing IPs off the project". That clarified, would you be in support of either of these, or neither of them?

I would still be against. It is frustrating for an IP editor to be invited to edit and then find they cannot when their chosen article to improve turns out to be semi-protected. It is far better, and more honest, if this is desired to make it clear from the outset that an account is required to edit, then there is no feeling of being slighted when your attempts are frustrated. SpinningSpark 21:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

7c. For BLP AFDs resulting in "no consensus", do you believe it is better to default to keep or default to delete? Why?

A: Keep. No consensus means that there was no valid argument advanced for deletion. If there were it would not be "no consensus". "No consensus" does not mean that the votes were evenly split, it means that the arguments are not decisive either way. consensus is not voting. I am aware that this is a hot topic at the BLP project, but currently WP:DEP makes no distinction for BLP articles except in the case of articles that fall in to the category of your next question. As for my opinion, I think the currect policy has got it right, there is no good reason to default to delete for no consensus for BLP articles; if the article is a WP:BLP violation it can be deleted for that and the decision will not be "no consensus".

Request for clarification: You say that no consensus means "the arguments are not decisive either way". So, when keep arguments for a BLP are not compelling, you believe it is better to default to keep if the arguments to delete are deemed to not be compelling as well? This is not a question about what policy says or necessarily what you would do in such a situation. Feel free to elaborate with hypotheticals, but it's simply asking what your belief is. Admins aren't required to agree with policy, only to know, enforce, and abide by them.

I believe I answered this when I said the current policy has got it right, which is to default to keep when there is no consensus. You never know, someone might improve the article. SpinningSpark 21:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

7d. Imagining you're an admin, you go to close a BLP AFD on a marginally notable individual. Reading through the comments, you see that the subject of the article (verified through OTRS) has voiced concerns about vandalism made to the article and wants it to be deleted. How much consideration, if any, do you give to their argument?

A: That question took me on an interesting hunt through the archives. The current deletion process guideline states;

(For BLP deletions, the standards are currently under discussion. WP:BLP presently states "When closing an AfD about living persons whose notability is ambiguous, the closing administrator should take into account whether the subject of the article being deleted has asked that it be deleted. The degree of weight given to such a request is left to their discretion".

However the link does not go to any such discussion (long since archived) and the BLP policy says no such thing. It used to say such a thing but was removed in this major revision of BLP on 7th May 2008. Since that puts the guideline badly out of sync with the BLP policy I am going to be bold and go and remove it. I know I should not make any potentially controversial edits while my RfA is ongoing but it is so obviously wrong and I cannot help myself.

Ok, so the actual current policy statement is found in the deletion policy and states,

"Discussions on relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus may be closed as delete".

So having cleared up what the policy actually is, and finally getting around to answering the question, my personal criteria would be this: if there is no consensus and the references are only borderline meeting WP:V and WP:RS I would close as delete. If the subject is the president of a major country, then it is an obvious keep. Everyone in between is on a sliding scale and doubtless there will be really difficult borderline cases out there where I will have no idea what to do, I would tend towards complying with the subject's request in those cases, but I would also consider asking for another administrator's opinion. I would also be influenced by the extent of editor protection at the article. An article that is guarded by rottweillers night and day is going to steer me towards a keep. An article that is left undefended except by the occasional passing vandal fighter is more likely to be a delete.

Optional question from User:Climie.ca

8: In the event of them conflicting with one another, should Wikipedia's policy trump common-sense, or vice versa?

A: In real life, on Wikipedia, and just about anywhere else, common-sense trumps everything. This is what WP:IAR was written for.

Additional questions from User:Geo Swan:

9. Here is a general question about WP:A7. Dick Pountain, a columnist for a British computer magazine, made a good faith experiment with the wikipedia, which I think did not reflect well on how our team of quality control volunteers interprets WP:A7. One of his contacts had written about: "...how Wikipedia continually struggles to repel vandalisation... but as a result is now ruled by bands of vigilantes who delete all new material without mercy or insight." Pountain wrote: "This is such a strong claim that it needed checking..." So, he started a short article on The Political Quarterly. It was promptly nominated for speedy deletion, and this speedy nomination was confirmed. I am afraid his good faith experiment confirmed his associate's description. I regard it as embarrassing that quality control volunteers who have never heard of Benito Mussolini or Leon Trotsky feel prepared to play a role in the deletion of articles on politics. Can I assume you would not have deleted the article? How little a shred of a claim of notability would you require, before you would tell the nominator they should use {{prod}} or {{afd}} instead? Geo Swan (talk) 20:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

A: Too right I would have declined to speedy that, it is not a candidate for speedy deletion under any criteria and certainly not an A7. This criterion is An article about a real person, an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. No mention of print media in there so A7 cannot be applied to it, and there is no question of it needing to assert notability to avoid speedy. I am not so surprised that it got tagged, this kind of mistake happens way too often, but I am surprised at the admin who failed to decline the speedy. To be kind to him, he may have mistaken it for web content instead of print, but even so there are clear assertions of notability in the article as it existed at the time of tagging [1]. A journal that claims to have stayed in print for 75 years is in itself notable in my book, the claim that major historical figures have contributed to it is notable (there is little danger that I would not have recognised these names, some of the works of Leon Trotsky sit on my bookshelf, but in any case, the names were wikilinked even at that early stage of the article so the deleting admin needed only to go read the articles to see how important these people were), the fact that it is currently edited by a British Member of Parliament is notable not to mention the string of notable past editors (not wikilinked true, but at least some have articles). How little a shred of a claim of notability would I require? in this case none at all, but in an article that was actually subject to A7, I would require only a shred, I am not actually permitted to speedy delete it if it has that much. When would I tell the nominator to prod or AfD? I wouldn't, prod is inappropriate following a declined speedy and the nominator can make up their own mind if they want to take it to AfD. I would not feel any compulsion to point them in that direction, although I might very well AfD an article myself after declining a speedy if I felt it deserved it (but let me emphasise, not in this particular case). The only slight qualm I have about the original article is that this subsequent edit suggests in the edit summary that the original text was a copyvio. If it was I cannot identify the source and the editor does not say, but in a case where copyvio (of the whole article) can be established speedy delete criterion G12 applies.

General comments

• Links for Spinningspark: Spinningspark (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Spinningspark can be found here.
• Promote Spinningspark
• I am now going offline. I will try and check in around 20:00, 14 April (UTC) but cannot guarantee that and any further questions will receive an answer. Thanks to everyone who has taken part so far. SpinningSpark 05:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

---

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

Discussion

• Editing stats posted at the talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
• For those that prefer them:
  • WikiChecker edit counter
  • Soxred93's edit counter
  • Wikimedia edit counter

~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 12:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. Impressed with his work and his friendliness. Also, per nom. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
2. I'm impressed with Spinningspark overall.  GARDEN  14:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
3. Support Looks good, well thought out responses and from what I've seen the same goes for interactions with other users on talk pages. The mistake mentioned in the nomination is far enough in the past and Spinningspark seems to have learned the appropriate lessons from the incident. Camw (talk) 14:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
4. Support per nominator. GT5162 ^{(我的对话页)} 14:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
5. Support - He's both learnt his lesson, and is a polite, friendly, and considerate user whose time would no doubt be more effectively used with the bit. :) — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 15:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
6. Support per Neurolysis.--Iner22 (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
7. Does good work, no reason to believe he'd abuse the tools. It seems clear that he learned from his mistake. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
8. I noted Spinningspark's Admin Coaching page when I traveled to Balloonman's talk page a while ago, and I checked out Spinningspark a little then. I was very impressed with what I saw, and I don't think he would have massively messed up in the two months since then. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 15:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

   Whose page were you visiting?---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

   Not the nominator's; I know that much. All I know of the nominator is that he is some person completely different from Balloonman. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 18:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

9. Weak support I have to admit, in my interaction with SpinningStark at DYK I found him a bit abrasive (but not egregiously so...and in his defense, I'm sure he found me abrasive as well) and wished he would have assumed more good faith. But that is just one editorial disagreement, and looking at the above I don't see any significant concerns, and no evidence that he would abuse the tools or do damage to the project. And he has a valid and noble use for the tools, with his work at EA. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
10. Support Won't abuse the tools. Timmeh! 16:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
11. Support Well-qualified. -download | sign! 18:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
12. Support No reason to oppose. America69 (talk) 19:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
13. Support I trust I'm Balloonman!'s judgement and apart from that a bit too colorful signature for my taste, I cannot see a reason not to trust this candidate. Regards SoWhy 19:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
14. Support I think we met at a London Meetup last year, sensible and thoughtful chap - will do well as an admin. ϢereSpielChequers 19:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
15. Support No problems.--Giants27 ^T/C 19:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
16. Support Reading through an AFD he participated in[2], his comments throughout show his character. I think he'd be a great administrator. Dream Focus 19:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
17. Support per Spark's work at WP:EAR. --AndrewHowse (talk) 21:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
18. Support Solid knowledge of Wikipedia, net positive. Also highly impressed with communication skills shown at editor assistance and the science reference desk. —Cyclonenim | Chat  21:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
19. Support Looks fine to me. LITTLEMOUNTAIN5 ^review! 23:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
20. Support I'm satisfied with the answers and comfortable with him having the tools. --CapitalR (talk) 00:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
21. Support Why not? - Fastily (talk) 02:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
22. Support Does plenty of work, image experienced admins are a big shortage, and certainly has leart from his mistake. I would strongly suggest that he makes it very clear on his talk page, as best as he can, when he is and isn't going to be available. --GedUK  06:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

    Good suggestion, I might do that right now. SpinningSpark 22:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

23. Support - Trustworthy, friendly, helpful. I think he'll make a good admin. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 09:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
24. A really great and knowledgable user. He will be an even greater asset as an admin.--Patton^t/c 10:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
25. Support Wizardman 13:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
26. Support, I quite liked that edit summary. --candle•wicke 13:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
27. Seems to have learned his lesson from the slipup a while ago. Answers look good; candidate appears to be smart, helpful, and dedicated. Looks good. GlassCobra 13:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
28. Support Of course. TNXMan 14:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
29. Support, seems fine. Stifle (talk) 14:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
30. Support this excellent candidate.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
31. Support I remember offering my opinion in the sockpuppet/checkuser/vandalism case; I'm impressed with how you've handled things going forward. Good luck. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
32. Support I've seen Spark around on various help desks, most recently WP:EAR and I know he is willing to take his time to help editors figure things out. No reason to believe he'd abuse the tools. Fleetflame 17:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
33. Support — Jake Wartenberg 23:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
34. Huge support Clueful image admin - more please. Black Kite 00:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
35. Support Know him from EAR, where he's done great work. Definitely capable, and will bust his ass to the project's benefit. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
36. Support good answers to questions: well thought through and not cookie cutter. I like that! Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
37. Support Impressive and helpful user. FlyingToaster 10:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
38. Support Nothing concerning, perfect edit summary usage; per my RfA criteria Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 10:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
39. Support. For some reason I recall seeing your work somewhere and thinking you would make a good administrator. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 14:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
40. support i think he's ready. DGG (talk) 23:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
41. Support Per nom. Wronkiew (talk) 04:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
42. Support No qualms here. hmwithτ 04:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
43. Support - I liked the answers to the question I don't like being asked :)) NVO (talk) 11:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
44. Support per meeting my standards. Bearian (talk) 18:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
45. Support Good luck. Dean B (talk) 19:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
46. Majorly talk 01:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
47. Of course, an easy decision. Spinningspark is a very friendly voice in any discussion with him in it (of what I've seen), and I think he'll do great as an administrator. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
48. Huge Support Initially he responded with patience to my early frustrations w/newbie questions regarding using Commons. His rapport, knowledge and detailed explanations are invaluable, and he remains consistently approachable for help.leahtwosaints talk 4:57 12 April UTC
49. Support, per nom, per answers to the first three questions, per great contributions to the project in varied capacities. Cirt (talk) 09:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
50. Support. The candidate seems trustworthy, helpful and experienced. Majoreditor (talk) 22:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
51. Support - Can't disagree with your nominator ;) Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 02:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
52. Support - Yep! AdjustShift (talk) 13:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
53. Support: I'll admit that I haven't researched this candidate as fully as I have others; but from what I see in a cursory glance indicates a clueful editor, a friendly contributor, and a capable candidate who could benefit the community with a couple extra functions at their disposal. — Ched :  ?  14:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
54. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 21:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
55. Support. No reason to believe the candidate will misuse the tools. — Σxplicit 21:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
56. Support (move from Neutral) I still disagree to the nominator's philosophy on the introduction and the candidate's acceptance speech (guys, first impression is very important). However, given the candidate's thoughtfully addressed answers, he proves his high understanding of various policies and seemed carefully re-examine them too. His responses on article talk pages are generally civil, so that meets my criteria. I'm concerned about his accessibility (he says he could be a only-weekend-active admin), but we have life too. To sum up, I think he can be a good admin to overcome past mistakes, and disadvantages. Good luck.--Caspian blue 22:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
57. Support No concerns for me. Oliver Fury, Esq. message • contributions 01:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
58. Support. Looks fine. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 11:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
59. Support no objections tempodivalse [☎] 14:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
60. No More beat the nom supports!---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
61. Support Drilling down, this incident, appears to have ended as a non-issue. I have to complement the nominee for his quick and full apology to the accused. From Analogue filter to Thigmorphogenesis, I find an outstanding combination of writing skills and referenced technical knowledge. Mature, friendly member of the community that would employ the tools in a fair and positive manner. --Preceding unsigned comment 00:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Too many administrators currently. DougsTech (talk) 23:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

   >_< - Fastily (talk) 02:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

   Oh not again! I'm sick of people opposing because there are "Too many administrators currently." Pathetic argument! Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 02:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

   Please, just drop this. There's plenty of drama elsewhere. A !vote is a !vote, regardless of what people think of the reasoning. — Ched :  ?  14:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

   I've since read that this has been discussed before. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 14:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

2. Half-hearted oppose. I like to pretend to myself that prospective admins just wake up one day and say "I think I could admin", then consult their wiki-friends, discover support, and then get nommed or self-nomm for adminship. I know it happens more than I realize, but I get profoundly uncomfortable with extended admin coaching and grooming processes - reminds me of politicians and their handlers rather than people who can be trusted with mops. I have little insight into the nominee's behavior and whether he is trustworthy, but I find the nom itself to be quite offputting and the discussion on the page around the purported misjudgement too focused (already at the time - Dec 2008) on to what extent this puts the nominee's trek to adminship at risk. If this nom were currently in the gray zone, I would not oppose on these grounds (rather stay silent or neutral), but since consensus seems to currently be very positive, I feel I am not being unfair in explicitly raising my concern. I wish the nominee all the best of luck, but would be much more comfortable with his having the mop if he stopped being coached, just acted his natural wiki-self for a few months, and then reapplied. Martinp (talk) 15:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I looked at the questions and wanted to support. However, I looked at the nom to see who nom'd, out of curiosity. I'm sorry, but the nom statement -really- turns me off, and I would oppose because of those actions. A few months? I wouldn't be okay with such actions (especially with the immediate vanishing) after 9 months or so. An admin doing such things would be very bad. I'm not opposing as a courtesy to an excellent admin coach that was honest about their candidate. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

   I'm Spartacus!, I've always appreciated your honest evaluation and assessment, but do you you really that your nomination statement secures the candidate's successful adminship? The first paragraph itself gives me enough doubt on his candidacy, but I will review his contribution with more time.--Caspian blue 14:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

   Responded on Caspian's talk page---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 03:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

   After reviewing the candidate's contributions and question and answers, my uncertainty over his ability for admin duties is cleared. (though I prefer speaking "succinctly") I still have a homework to reply to the nominator. :)--Caspian blue 21:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)