Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Snowspinner

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User:Snowspinner; (28/2†/14/2); ended 15:25, 6 June 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

I took a look at his user page and noticed that he has been doing a lot of good work on Critical Theory- and Foucault-related articles. 172 15:25, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Information: About 1800 edits, here since 18 April 2004. -- Cecropia | Talk 15:55, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
I accept. I am willing to fulfill the responsibilities of adminship, and they are responsibilities I am interested in taking on. However, I am on the new side, and I want to stress that I completely understand anyone who would vote against my nomination on these grounds. Snowspinner 19:14, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]


Support

  1. 172 15:25, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  2. JFW | T@lk 15:35, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Starx 15:44, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Guanaco 15:58, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Meelar 16:39, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Merovingian ↕ T@Lk 16:52, May 30, 2004 (UTC)
  7. Support strongly.GrazingshipIV 17:34, May 30, 2004 (UTC)
  8. Support.  – Jrdioko (Talk) 19:37, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support --"DICK" CHENEY 22:25, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  10. cryptfiend64 23:18, May 30, 2004 (UTC)
  11. RickK 02:51, May 31, 2004 (UTC) Normally I'd say wait, but Snowspinner has been a very good contributor since arriving. Support strongly.
  12. john k 06:05, 31 May 2004 (UTC). Sure, why not? Especially since he's shown an interest in administrative matters.[reply]
  13. Fredrik 13:20, 31 May 2004 (UTC) - Great contributor. Users have been given sysop status in the past for doing less work.[reply]
  14. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:27, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Cribcage 20:45, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  16. Support anthony (see warning)
  17. Danny 02:29, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  18. --GeneralPatton 18:13, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC) - Is a serious and dedicated contributor that has the right material for the makings of a great admin.
  19. Tuf-Kat 20:32, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
  20. older≠wiser 21:15, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  21. Jim Regan 04:07, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC) For attempting to create "Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Snowspinner". Maybe Snowspinner could do with some more experience, but I take this as a sign to expect only good things.
  22. Tεxτurε 14:30, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  23. Support- highly dedicated to fighting trolls and vandals such as that one below calling him a "lap-dog". - Fennec (さばくのきつね) 16:24, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  24. Support. - David Gerard 16:28, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  25. Recent actions by Snowspinner and certain other users has caused me to overcome my "too soon" objection. -- Cyrius|✎ 18:35, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  26. Support. Snowspinner's contributions have consistently been well written and well thought out, and, generally, has been instrumental in helping to resolve conflicts, especially on contentious issues. -Seth Mahoney 20:39, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  27. Support. Snowspinner is a dedicated user. I do not think the minimum time thing is very relevant any more, especially with the number of sysops there are already. This user has had the opportinuty to prove himself to the Wikipedia community, and I believe he has done that. - Mark 06:24, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  28. Support. Nunh-huh 06:36, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

†Support on July 18, subject to reconsideration

  1. Cecropia | Talk 03:31, 31 May 2004 (UTC) Will any negative voters (or positive) join me in this category?[reply]
  2. Infrogmation 05:56, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC) Ok. Too soon as of writing, but with continued good work and a longer track record of interacting with other wikipedians looks like a potential good choice.
  • No. I use four months, and while I like Snowspinner's work, I am disinclined to make an exception. Four months is not that long. Since part of the purpose of waiting is to offer us greater opportunity to gauge candidates' reaction to the blowing of the wiki-winds, voting "in advance" defeats some of the purpose. UninvitedCompany
    • I take this not so much as a "vote in advance" as "expect to support at future date barring unforseen issues" rather than "oppose" which has a different connotation to me. -- Cecropia | Talk 13:44, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. UninvitedCompany 18:04, 30 May 2004 (UTC). Respectfully oppose. While Snowspinner is a great contributor, this nomination is premature. He has only been here six weeks.[reply]
  2. Too early. Maximus Rex 18:09, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Not even a month and a half yet. Kingturtle 18:14, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    Forget my original reason to oppose User:Snowspinner for admin. My new reason involves User:Snowspinner's rude and contentious treatment of ChrisDJackson on RfA today. IMHO, Snowspinner bullied Chris, and Snowspinner showed a lack of diplomacy. These are not qualities I look for in an admin. Chris is correct. More than one person told him to re-apply, including myself. Kingturtle 01:55, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC) I am impressed with Snow's resolution of this issue. I go back to my original reason for opposition. Just not enough time yet. Kingturtle 06:16, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    I stand by my personal opinion that it was inappropriate for Chris to self-nominate that soon after his previous nomination went down that way, and that it displayed poor judgment. I expressed this view in a negative vote, and was leapt upon by Chris. I think my responses were fair and reasonable. He chose to pursue the matter of why I thought he would not make a good admin. I explained this view when challenged. I'm not sure how, short of having a different opinion on his suitability, I could have handled that differently. And, as a side note, I wish that you would not deliberately vary my user name so as to make a personal attack on me. Snowspinner 02:26, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
    Oh please get over it. He is not personally attacking you. You are the one who personally attacked me, as others can see. ChrisDJackson
    Where did I personally attack you?
  4. Far too new, would likely support in future with different nominator. Sam [Spade] 22:19, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    If you people were employers and you were hiring someone, would you hire the person who got x amount of work done in a year, or the person who got the very same amount of work done in a month? I think that if a user has contributed work worthy of a year or two within a period of only a month or two, the short time span should only be taken as a sign of potential productivity, not potential "inexperience." IMHO, if one were to describe a formula for voting on admin status, I'd favor putting the quality/quantity of a user's contributions on the numerator and consigning the duration of the user's activity to the denominator. BTW, when I nominated Snowspinner, I wasn't aware that he'd not been user for a long time. But I'm only more impressed with his dedication to Wikipedia after having found out that he has done so much in such a short span of time. Perhaps for strategic reasons I should've waited a few more weeks, so I apologize to Snowspinner for my oversight (hence, having been an admin for roughly a year doesn't stop me from making mistakes). But, still, I suggest that you people change your votes. He's just as qualified (if not far more qualified) than the typical user who gets voted in unanimously. 172 02:57, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    I think editors are becoming uncomfortable with an ever-shortening timespan for admins. You're making the analogy of employment, I'll make the analogy of romance and marriage. A little more time to know who you're dealing with gives you a comfort level for a longer-term commitment. May I propose this: when we get a user like Snowspinner and some others, who many feel would be well-qualified but is just kind of new, maybe we should simply suspend the nomination and revive it when the user reaches three months, rather than be forced to make a positive or negative judgment when it is simply too early. To that end, since this is supposed to be process of consensus rather than numerical voting, I'm casting a vote for suspension below. -- Cecropia | Talk 03:31, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is, in general, a fabulous idea, though I worry about it being hell for people trying to sort out what nominations to bring back when - unless we just have a "Cold storage" section or something. That said, I also think delaying could easily be achieved through a neutral or negative vote at the time of the premature nomination, and then a renomination yourself on July 18th. Snowspinner 03:40, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    My main concept is that an Oppose because of a simple time issue is not the same as an Oppose because you feel someone is unqualified, and I don't want an excellent editor like yourself to go away feeling "opposed" as it were, when some of us just want to adhere to a minimal standard. I feel it creates an unnecessary situation which might be embarassing to some nominees. -- Cecropia | Talk 03:51, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    If this is a localized point instead of a general one, go ahead and oppose - as I said accepting it, I know this is an early nomination, and that those are controversial. (And I've opposed people on the grounds of being too early before. I've also voted for early admin status for people before. It really depends on the person for me.) That said, I suspect you're making a more general point in this case. :) Snowspinner 04:05, May 31, 2004 (UTC)
    I suspect you've got it! :) -- Cecropia | Talk 04:07, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Far, far too new. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't this user been involved in conflicts with other users? →Raul654 06:27, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
    I think that you're wrong. I don't think that this user has been involved in any major conflicts. I've probably had the strongest disagreement with him so far, and I'm the one nominating him. It was a more or less amicable disagreement. 172 06:46, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    I can't think of any substantial conflicts that weren't amicably resolved through discussion... maybe with User:Avala? In either case, yes, I've entered a number of user conflicts, and been vocal in them. Generally, these have been conflicts I've found through RfC, or simply by watching RC. I have not been shy about adding my voice to debates. I have also behaved civily in those debates, respected Wikipedia policy, and sought consensus. So, yes, I've gotten into conflicts. But I would hope that staying out of conflicts is not a requirement for adminship - indeed, I think going into them and trying to seek consensus is a plus, not a minus. Snowspinner 13:16, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
    I think you will find that is an uncommon opinion. Sam [Spade] 13:54, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    Then I'm uncertain what RfC is supposed to be for. Snowspinner 14:15, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
  6. Just a wee bit too new. Sorry, Snowspinner.-- ALargeElk | Talk 16:08, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. The user has not been here long enough and is not up on all the rules or past events. ChrisDJackson
  8. Way too new. -- DrBob 18:33, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  9. Not yet, but in another few weeks, I think so. BCorr|Брайен 20:25, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  10. Oppose. Don't like at all how he behaved in the edit wars on Heteronormativity and his precious Critical Theory article series box. Maybe in a year or so, but right now, not even close to the stuff admins should be made of. -- AlexR 05:01, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    The edit war in question was me stepping into an existing mess involving AlexR and Sam Spade. I attempted to negotiate a compromise position. In this case, the attempts at compromise pleased no one, and I will readily agree that, on the whole, Heteronormativity has been the article in which my edits have been the least successful. As for the ASB, it was hardly precious, and I point out that I've been doing heavy work on deleting it from articles and replacing it with the category system today, and intend to finish the job up tomorrow. My purpose was always to make information available - there's finally a better system in place than ASBs, and I've been swift to adopt it. Snowspinner 05:15, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
    I would mention that while this was probably Snowspin's lowpoint on the wikipedia, anyone who reviews it would see that it in no way displayed anything which should exclude him from adminship, particularly since he was so new to the wiki at that time. Sam [Spade] 20:55, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    What I said was by no means only about his first edits there. The very same picture continues until yesterday, where he insisted on installing categories about a field he knows, by his own admission, little, to get a link removed from the article he does not like. And I spent a good time to clean up after him, because at least one category was so inapropriatley named it bordered on insult. Sorry, but this is not how admins should behave. -- AlexR 13:30, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    As I've said before, feel free to review the edit history on Heteronormativity, and to read the talk archives. It's the worst work I've done on Wikipedia. I don't think it violates rules, and I don't think it displays bad judgment. I think it's a textbook example of a bad situation, where the options were to leave an article that needs serious work alone, or to get into a tense situation. I picked the latter. If I could go back, I'd pick the former, because the article is still in need of serious work, but now I have an ulcer. Snowspinner 15:58, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
    This claim is ridiculous. Snowspinner dropped into the article only hours after several edit wars had come to a temporary stand. Obviously the article was not in best shape, which article is after an edit war? Also, these edit wars were by no means only between Sam Spade and me. Snowspinner did some minor clean-ups, and that was that, and the last few edit wars were between Sam Spade and him. So sorry, but this is disinformation he is providing here. -- AlexR 20:02, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  11. Just as we have a 90-day requirement before one can vote in the current election it seems sensible to retain a 'qualification' period for holding any other position such as admin. One needs that full 90 days of history to base a decision upon. --VampWillow 17:01, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  12. Not willing to listen to the other users. Does not understand word consensus - general or widespread agreement among all the members of a group --Avala 18:32, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  13. No, Snowspinner, Abe and GrazingshipIV work way too close I worry about these users getting together as Sysops, makes me wonder who is cabal that they often cite. Ok, ok snow, i'll admit he is not in the "cabal" but he's still too new for me. Comrade Nick @)----^-- 03:23, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    [1] is probably of interest to people regarding this vote. Snowspinner 06:13, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
  14. I have now reviewed this user's edits, and find his behavior on Heteronormativity problematic. JRR Trollkien (see warning) 10:44, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • This vote is disputed by HCheney. [2]

Neutral

  1. VV 22:04, 30 May 2004 (UTC) While 172's motives in making this nomination are suspect, Snowspinner is clearly an excellent choice. However, I do share the broader concerns about this being way too soon. So, neither support or oppose for now.[reply]
  2. High on a tree 13:17, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC) Snowspinner deleted a perfectly reasonable comment by his opponent in a discussion (using a dubious edit description), clearly against that person's will. I'd be quite concerned about someone who acts like that getting administrator privileges. However, I appreciate that he has done a tremendous amount of productive work here, and that incident occurred shortly after he joined WP - so, time preventing me from getting a more complete picture (on how he has acted in conflicts since then), I abstain from voting Oppose.
    This was less an attempt at censorship and more an instance of outright carelessness - I'd meant to move the comment to Talk:Fashionable Nonsense (Since it was a comment on that article, and not on Sokal Affair, removed the comment, and then apparently got distracted and forgot to ever put it into the other article. Based on the time of day, I probably had just set my lunch on fire or something. I apologize for this. Snowspinner 14:28, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)

Discussion

I'm curious as to the reasoning behind objecting to a nomination due to the nominator. Snowspinner 22:39, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone done so? If you're referring to my comment, that is quite a misreading. VV 07:11, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Sam Spade noted the nominator as one of his reasons for opposing - your comment was not the one I was referring to. :) Snowspinner 15:41, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
Since a nominator has the permission of the nominee, it is incumbent upon the nominee to show judgement in refusing any nominations that are inappropriate. There have been some recent examples involving a user with a pattern of making nominations of users who were not suitable candidates. I consider 172 a user in good standing, however, and only oppose this nomination based on the objective criteria I try to follow when voting here. UninvitedCompany 02:49, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

After considering the ChrisDJackson incident, I decided to examine Snowspinner's record a little bit. Snowspinner first edited this page (RfA) on April 18, also the day of Snowspinner's first edit. Considering I had a three month gap between when I first edited (December 23) and when I first edited RfA (March 2), I found it very strange that a new user would be interested in this page on his/her first day. --"DICK" CHENEY 02:48, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The edit was a non-voting edit in the process of discussing UninvitedCompany's nomination. There was some discussion over the fact that UninvitedCompany had previously used a different account. Someone mentioned a "reason for concern that they didn't feel comfortable going into." Another person asked what this reason was. I speculated that it was the use of a different account that had been mentioned elsewhere in the discussion. As for why I was on the page so early in my Wikilife, it's linked to off of Community Portal, and I was on Community Portal because it seemed like a very sensible page for a user to hit on his first day. I saw the link to RfA, I followed it out of curiosity, I saw the discussion, I attempted to clarify. There's really nothing sinister at all about it. (In fact, it's possible that the edit in question wasn't even originally made under my name - my April 18th edits were, I believe, all IP edits that I had assigned to my username later on.) Snowspinner 03:09, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining that. My support for you stands. --"DICK" CHENEY 03:25, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Snowspinner is a dedicated and serious contributor that I feel needs to be rewarded for all his great work, making him an admin will show him as a great example as well as give him and others further impulse to improve and enrich Wiki. --GeneralPatton 18:24, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  1. Editing Saddam Hussein this guy's 172's lapdog please vote no; they should both be banned
    I would like to note that the userpage of this user clearly indicates that it is a sockpuppet account. Snowspinner 04:05, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
    Moved from oppose. Guanaco 04:15, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    Could this be the persistent anti-Snowspinner vandal? Guanaco 04:22, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    Very possibly. See [3] for an accounting of what's been going on with this and some other IPs/usernames. Short form: it's very likely a sockpuppet of Plato/ComradeNick. Snowspinner 06:13, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
    I've heard people suggest User:Lir myself (IP reasons) but that's secondhand (and this is thirdhand, heh) - Fennec (さばくのきつね) 03:45, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No vote yet. Why is the dagger for June 18th? I thought that the recommended period was 3 months, not 2 months. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:46, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)

It's not. I think you're misreading. It's for July 18th. :) Snowspinner 21:36, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
No wonder I failed 1st grade... - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:42, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Snowspinner&oldid=1138652243"