Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sir Sputnik

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Sir Sputnik

Final (200/6/8); Closed as successful by 28bytes (talk) at 15:58, 21 October 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Nomination by GeneralizationsAreBad

Sir Sputnik (talk · contribs) – Katie and I are proud to present Sir Sputnik as a candidate for adminship. With over a decade of experience contributing to our project, Sir Sputnik has worked on UNSC-related articles, contributed to deletion processes, fought vandalism, and much more. As an SPI clerk, Sir Sputnik has a compelling need for the tools — particularly blocking, case-merging, and viewing deleted pages — which would help considerably in clearing the perpetual backlog.

Having worked extensively alongside Sir Sputnik at SPI, I can attest to his formidable clerking skills. Cases such as Hamzaramzan123 and Johnseenio illustrate Sir Sputnik’s diligence and attention to detail. He often evaluates and closes cases without recommending action — as seen at Brently Perumal and Authorgaurav — which is a key part of admin discretion. In all my interactions with Sir Sputnik, he has been courteous and professional, and I believe that he has what it takes for adminship. Thank you for your consideration. GABgab 18:00, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by Katie

Though he has been an editor for almost ten years, I first encountered Sir Sputnik two years ago at SPI. I was impressed by the quality and consistency of his reports; he rarely made an inaccurate one, and he never asked for actions we could not take. I took him on as a clerk trainee in October 2017, and I can attest that he is diligent, a quick learner, and takes all feedback into account to improve his performance. These are great qualities in an administrator. I'm very proud of his performance as a clerk. He is excellent at connecting the dots and analyzing behavior. He has also contributed to the sourcing and improvement of many articles on German football and the United Nations Security Council elections.

Administrator clerks at SPI are vital to the smooth operation of the section. Sir Sputnik is inhibited at present by lack of ability to see deleted versions and to block, and SPI is inhibited because Ivanvector, one of our most respected admin clerks, was just appointed as a CheckUser. We need help, and by giving Sir Sputnik the tools, we'll gain a competent, dedicated administrator who only has the best interests of the project in mind. Thanks for taking a look at this awesome editor. :-) Katietalk 19:04, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you both for your kind words. I accept the nomination with pleasure. As required, I disclose that I have never engaged in paid editing. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:51, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I've done a fair amount of deletion work, and some anti-vandalism work over the years and I intend to continue working in those areas. However, I'm mainly asking for admin tools in support of my role as an SPI clerk. In particular, the ability to review deleted edits would be an invaluable investigative tool. I imagine I will slowly expand into other areas, especially as they overlap with SPI, but for now, this is where I intend to start.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: If I had to point to one example, it would be my work on the elections to the UN Security Council between 1976 and 1985. Key sources that I had used in articles on elections in other years were not available online for these years. Looking back on it now, I'm quite pleased with the research that went into tracking down print versions of these sources. Beyond that I'm also quite pleased with the work that went into ensuring that the Lists of German football transfers are properly sourced, and of course my SPI work.
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 guess this is as good a place as any to disclose that I am autistic. There's an essay at
WP:HONEYPOT on what that means, both generally and in the context of Wikipedia. For me in particular, this means that most human interactions are stressful to some extent, and dealing with that stress is just a fact of life for me. When, for example, I'm challenged on an SPI close (for instance User talk:Sir Sputnik/Archive 7#Jburchard1 SPI, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mikeoworthy/Archive
), it usually just means that I'm a bit slower to respond due to stress than I would otherwise be, but that is probably a good thing anyway, since my responses will be more thoroughly thought through.

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Additional question from Wumbolo
4. How does withdrawing AfD nominations work, i.e. what are the possibilities and/or prerequisites?
A: A nomination may be withdrawn if no one but the nominator supports deletion, and doing so does not preempt on going discussions. This usually happens because the nominator has missed some crucial bit of information about the subject or relevant guidelines, and has changed their mind about the nomination on discovering it. A nominator may also apply any of the other
speedy keep
criteria to their own nominations.
Additional question from User:Reyk
5. What, in your opinion, is the most important of Wikipedia's policies and why?
A: The most important policy is principles are unquestionably the Five pillars. They are an assertion of what Wikipedia is and how it should function, and as a result all other policy is rooted in one or more of the pillars. In short they are fundamental.
Additional question from Alex Shih
6. There seem to be an slight disagreement over the wording/enforcement of
this thread in which you have initiated. With that in mind, may I ask where you stand on this issue, and as a second question, could you offer your opinion on this tangentially related withdrawn arbitration case request ([1]
) about questionable BLP reverts by blocked editors?
A:
WP:G5
applies to articles with no substantial edits by editors other than the blocked or banned user in question. The disagreement, at least in the thread linked, is over what exactly constitutes substantial editing. This is of course inherently subjective. My rule of thumb for this is that an edit is not substantial if it does not change the content of an article (i.e. only changes to spelling, grammar, formatting etc.) or changes it so little that an inattentive reader might not notice the difference.
Enforcement of
WP:EVADE
is another question altogether. The disagreement here is over when to revert edits by sockpuppets that are not otherwise disruptive. My position on this is that we must weigh the benefits of the edits themselves against potential unrecognized downsides and discouraging future evasion.
As for the AE request, Bbb23 sums the situation up nicely. Anyone is free revert block evasion without further explanation, but must take care that they don't leave the article in a state that violates content policies and guidelines. Any further disagreements over the content should be handled under the relevant content policies and guidelines rather than anything related to block evasion.
Additional question from Dolotta
7. What area(s) of the English Wikipedia do you need the most improvement?
A: Could I ask for some clarification here? Do you mean In what areas do I need the most improvement, or What areas of the encyclopedia do I feel need the most improvement?
@Sir Sputnik: The former. -- Dolotta (talk) 02:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Probably my biggest knowledge gap in areas I'm likely to work in is in copyright. I can recognize and deal with the most blatant copyright violations, but the finer points of the policy are unfamiliar to me. I don't expect to work in this area much, but it will pop up at SPI from time to time. I will make a point of educating myself as needed when it does.
Additional question from L293D
8. Suppose you see a report at UAA for a user 'User:Serial rapists should be dead'. What do you do?
A: If memory serves, a similarly named account was recently blocked, so there's a reasonable chance would I wind up taking this to SPI. If not, it's clearly a disruptive username, so the account should be soft-blocked.
Additional question from Sakaimover
9. As an admin, what additional contributions will you make to the project that cannot be addressed effectively by the existing administrators?
A: I've addressed this a little in Q1, reviewing deleted edits at SPI is the main reason I'm asking for admin tools. SPI is frequently backlogged, and as an SPI clerk I'm in a unique position to help deal with that, but there are many cases I can't effectively review, because much of the relevant evidence is not visible to me.
Additional question from Ritchie333
10. Your recent mainspace contributions consist mostly of removing citations to
WP:BLPSOURCES
?
A: The simple answer is that I don't think the statement is inaccurate. My objection is only to the source, not the content it's used to support. Transfermarkt is unreliable because much of its content is user-edited, not because it's frequently wrong. As such, I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the statement made.
WP:BLPSOURCES
is about material which is likely to be challenged. Here the material in question is uncontroversial and likely to be accurate, so it's unlikely to be challenged. Removal would not be inappropriate, but also not necessary if you ask me.
Additional question from SoWhy
11. Could you elaborate what went wrong with
WP:BEFORE
failures.
A: Terroso is an outlier. I was aware of the sources presented in the AfD before I nominated the article. This type of coverage is usually considered routine. You'll notice another editor making exactly that point in the discussion. For whatever reason, sources were interpreted differently here. People are inconsistent.
The other two are cases where there was a single determining factor in notability. At the time, Yeangdar met
WP:GNG based largely on a single article in The Independent
. In cases the like this, there is always the risk that you just happen to miss the one determinant thing. I had the bad luck of having it happen twice in quick succession.
Additional question from Eli355
12. What is the thermal expansion coefficient for copernicium?
A:
struck out good-faith question. If candidate still wants to answer it, then please free. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:19, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Hawkeye7
13.In what ways do we tolerate sock puppetry? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:20, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A: I'm going to assume you don't mean legitimate uses of multiple accounts, but rather cases where we know misuse has occurred but don't act on it. Unfortunately, this is not something I can discuss publicly in much detail, because I don't was to
give people ideas
. Much of what I would have to say on this subject could very easily be misconstrued as a guide on how to get away with sockpuppetry. The one example I think I can offer safely is inactivity. If a sockpuppet account has been inactive for an extended period of time by the time it's discovered, it's usually not worth blocking. Most other case where this comes up are similar, in that acting on sockpuppetry is sometimes not worthwhile.
14. No, I mean, what things could we do to stamp out sock puppetry, but choose not to? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:07, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A: There are plenty of things we could do, but where the downsides outweigh the benefits. The most obvious example of this is rangeblocks. There are many cases where we could prevent block evasion by editing while logged out with a rangeblock, but chose not due to the significant risk of collateral damage.
Additional question from TonyBallioni
15. What is your understanding of
WP:V
and the role it plays in building an encyclopedia?
A: An encyclopedia is a tertiary source. It's function is primarily to summarize what has been published in other sources. The most crucial role of verifiability is in establishing credibility. This is particularly important for an open project like Wikipedia. It allows the reader to check the source of the information for themselves rather than to simply trust the editorial process as they might with the likes Britannica or World Book.
Additional question from TonyBallioni
16. Can you please explain your view on the differences in how administrators should deal with promotion only accounts as compared to other forms of disruption?
A: In most cases where an editor is engaged in at least some constructive editing in addition to disruption, the editor should be informed of the nature of the problem and given the opportunity to stop of their own accord. Only after this has been tried unsuccessfully should the editor be blocked.
This does not apply to cases where an editor is engaged exclusively in conduct that is incompatible with the purposes or principles of Wikipedia, such as promotional editing. In these cases, the editor should be blocked immediately and indefinitely. In cases of promotional editing specifically, their edits should also be rolled back, and any articles they created which have not been brought into line with
WP:NPOV
should be deleted.
Additional question from Cwmhiraeth
17. With regard to the second part of your response to question 16, your approach seems very hard line. Please explain what steps you would take before blocking the editor concerned.
A: To be clear, the hard line approach is only for cases where an editor is here only to engage in promotion (or other clearly inappropriate conduct). So before blocking, I would take a long hard look their editing to be sure that this is actually what's going on. What I'm looking for here is a clear and consistent pattern of abuse that shows purpose and no sign of stopping. So for example, an account with only very small number of edits would likely not fit the bill since there wouldn't be enough edits to establish a pattern, even if all of them are promotional.
What would precede any action on my part in this case is a misconduct investigation. While the context is a bit different in the scenario described, it would be essentially the same process I run through in any SPI. First I formulate an initial hypothesis based on what I have already seen. I then try to determine what other evidence is likely to exist if the hypothesis is accurate and what evidence would get me to change my mind, and I look for those things. I then revise my hypothesis based on what I've found, and repeat this process until I think there is no more useful evidence to be gleaned. I then evaluate based on what I've seen, how confident I am in my final hypothesis, and decide whether to act on it or not.
Additional question from Fred Gandt
18. When asked by User:Reyk "What, in your opinion, is the most important of Wikipedia's policies and why?", you answered "The most important policy is unquestionably the Five pillars.". The Five Pillars are not a Wikipedia Policy; would you like to amend you answer or explain your interpretation of "Principle" as "Policy"?
A: Outside of actually policy pages, the word "policy" tends to get used quite loosely, in my experience. I understood the question to be using the word in its broad, common meaning, rather than the narrow, technical one. That being said, I can certainly appreciate the need for precision of language, and have changed the answer accordingly.

Discussion

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.

Support
  1. Support Yes, finally! I've been silently hoping you'd go for it for a while now. This has been a long time coming. If this succeeds, I think the existing admins will be happy to never see an "Awaiting administrative action" from Sir Sputnik on SPI pages again. :-)--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 16:03, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support as nom. GABgab 16:04, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support as co-nom. Katietalk 16:05, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Obviously. I always wonder why any SPI clerks are not admins :) Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:07, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support I've had great experiences interacting with this user, and always wondered why they weren't an admin already. They'd be a great addition to the janitorial team. Vermont (talk) 16:09, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Hhkohh (talk) 16:15, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support I'm especially impressed by the answer to questions 3.--I am One of Many (talk) 16:23, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support great work at SPI and on football articles and good nac closes at AFD, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 16:26, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support As above, a very good SPI clerk, where admin tools will help. Sir Sputnik has
    NETPOSITIVE to the project. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 16:31, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  10. Support No reason not to. We can use another admin SPI clerk, like User:Sro23. SemiHypercube ✎ 16:36, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support A much appreciated calm, diplomatic and helpful presence at SPI. Ben MacDui 16:42, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support good contributions and cool temperament. Will make a great admin and will you the tools in a positive manner.
    « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:43, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  13. Support. Sir Sputnik's name popped up on my radar a little over a year ago. In that time, Sir Sputnik has done good work at
    WP:SPI and proven trustworthy. SPI work really benefits from the administrative toolset, and this is an editor who will use the tools well. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:44, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  14. (edit conflict) Support Good work at SPI and their asynchronous admin score is off the charts. I thought they were an admin already. Mkdw talk 16:45, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Sir Sputnik has done an excellent job at SPI and I have every confidence they will make a fine administrator. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:49, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. Great clerking at SPI; no showstoppers found in his other editing. Favonian (talk) 17:05, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  17. When Wumbolo, Editor of Wikipedia enters the battlefield, exile all other creatures except for Sir Sputnik, Editor of Wikipedia and support 1.
  18. Support Good for me. Kante4 (talk) 17:08, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - You have clearly been of immense benefit to the project. Great work! Orphan Wiki 17:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support - no concerns, good luck and thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 17:15, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Mélencron (talk) 17:19, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Proven track record in an difficult area where more help is urgently needed. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support I don't usually jump into an RfA this quickly but Sir Sputnik is an editor I have come across on multiple occasions and always came away with a very positive sense about them. I also have confidence in the sound judgement of the nominators. Glad to see him here and look forward to working with him in the future. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:31, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support I have come across this user many a time at SPI. Never had an issue with their work there, the user has more than convinced me that they can be trusted. Good luck!--5 albert square (talk) 17:53, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support JPG-GR (talk) 17:54, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. Legendary editor!
    hundreds 17:58, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  27. Support. I happily support such a conscientious user who will immediately put such tools to good use.Loopy30 (talk) 18:06, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  28. support exactly per Ninja Robot Pirate. Tools would be great help for Sputnik in SPI. Also per JPG-GR. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    update: now I am leaning towards neutral in the light of answer to Q10. Not going to oppose downright. Sputnik has shown massive understanding in other areas, amazing competency, and need for the tools. But his answer to Q10 is somewhat troubling. —usernamekiran(talk) 15:35, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Impressive work at SPI. –Ammarpad (talk) 18:19, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support - Obvious net positive. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:28, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support – An experienced and hard-working editor who will put the tools to good use. Kurtis (talk) 18:29, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support - being an SPI clerk is traditionally accepted as a very rapid way of demonstrating the "have a clue" criteria. We somewhat clash in our AfD ideologies, but I have no reason to think that you wouldn't be a significant net improvement to the admin corps. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:30, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support The few RfA's I've seen here that came from clerkships have all been successful. The clerk role, which is analogous to that of an apprenticeship, is an age old, tried and true technique for those wishing to assume responsibilities (I guess you could say it's the closest thing we have to a "sysops school") which leaves me confident in giving an early support.  Spintendo  18:32, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Without question will be a net positive. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Why not? -FASTILY 18:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Per noms,
    Lourdes 18:49, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  37. Support - couldn’t find any reasons to not support. Based on the rash of recent promotions here at RfA, I think maybe we’re on a lucky streak - let’s keep it going. Atsme✍🏻📧 18:58, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Gog the Mild (talk) 19:02, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Member of Ten Year Society and not indef'd.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  19:06, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support sounds like will be an asset Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:14, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support, surprised he wasn't one already. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:33, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support, I can't imagine any reason why this fine editor should not be an admin. bd2412 T 19:52, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  43. support--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:01, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support No concerns, always need active admins familiar with SPI and socks. -- ferret (talk) 20:23, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support No Brainer Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:36, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support, glad Sir Sputnik finally decided to brave the stress of RFA. Bishonen | talk 20:50, 14 October 2018 (UTC).[reply]
  47. Support --Jaellee (talk) 20:53, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Good luck —AE (talk • contributions) 21:04, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support I have had only positive interactions with the editor, and seems worthy. For me, this falls under the "could have already been an admin" category. Equineducklings (talk) 21:13, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support - oh man, I watchlisted this page yesterday before it was transcluded, expecting that I'd be one of the first few to support, but I managed to just edge into the first 50. I'm pleased to see you running, and as usual with the SPI corps I wonder why it took you so long. You're more than ready, and I look forward to seeing you with the mop. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:25, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support, based on review. Does need to work on content creation, but he or she has time to do that. Kierzek (talk) 21:43, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support: content creation aside, no objections and good rationale. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 21:48, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support (Edit conflict x 405 )Does good work as a SPI clerk Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:49, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support I'm concerned about your answer to #3 because as an admin, you can expect to be challenged a lot, at times not politely. But as long as you are aware of this going in, confer with other admins if you have questions, and take your time if you feel stressed, I think you'll do fine. Liz Read! Talk! 21:49, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support: a trusted contributor; extra help in dealing with the SPI backlog would be a boon. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:58, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Strong Support A superlative SPI clerk; will undoubtedly be an excellent admin.----Anthony Bradbury"talk" 22:21, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support Absolutely. I have run across Sir Sputnik many times over the years and have always found them to be clueful. I have no concerns about their ability to be an effective administrator. — CactusWriter (talk) 22:42, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support - Absolutely yes. Great candidate, no concerns JMHamo (talk) 22:52, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support. No reason not to. /Julle (talk) 22:54, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:59, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support Excellent editor who I trust will do a good job with the tools. Number 57 23:17, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support Why not? Double sharp (talk) 23:21, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support Practically the perfect adminship candidate. TeraTIX 23:43, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support. Qualified. -- Ϫ 23:50, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Stephen 00:18, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support Not insane. User:Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:18, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support No concerns
    contribs) 01:59, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  68. Support appears to have a clue & demonstrated use for the tools. Wants to be an admin so I'm not sure that Shock Brigade Harvester Boris is correct. Find bruce (talk) 02:06, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support - Obviously possesses the good judgement and temperament needed to be an administrator. EclipseDude (talk) 02:09, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support, no issues--Ymblanter (talk) 02:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support - Bully for them. Very little interaction with this editor, but what has occurred has been positive. Onel5969 TT me 03:15, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support. I have no concerns. CapitalSasha ~ talk 03:21, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support trusted editor. FitIndia Talk 04:25, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support we can always use more Admins with a clue. Does great cleanup work. Legacypac (talk) 05:30, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support. Like the narrow focus in Q1 and stark honesty in Q3. Q3 example makes me a little queasy about insight, but I'll give it a go. Glrx (talk) 05:51, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support I've come across the user regularly at football AfDs and he has a clear understanding there of deletion policy. His SPI work also seems to be in high regard with a clear need for the admin tools. Kosack (talk) 06:44, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support. Obviously great candidate, yes please. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:50, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll just note that SirSputnik has created about 200 more articles than I have, including about 100 more non-stubs. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:50, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support, for various reasons mentioned above. -- zzuuzz (talk) 06:52, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support - solid work at SPI. Cabayi (talk) 07:20, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support - worked with this editor for a number of years now, about time. GiantSnowman 08:27, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support Actual content creation is enough for me. Given that their work has been lately focused on SPI, where they will most likely continue working, I am not surprised that the candidate has not taken content to the GA level yet. I have watched them since they first requested feedback about mopping and have been impressed by their evenhand, courteous manners and precision. Their answers to Q3 and Q5 have sealed the deal for me. We need dedicated sysops who are efficient but who also recognized their limitations, who take the time to think controversies through before acting upon emotions because they trust clear thinking more, and above all, who are honest to the core. They may err on the side of the law, but this predictability helps them and their colleagues to handle issues easier than with more conventional sysops. In fact, recognizing this tendency may tilt them in the other direction. That they have been working for so long and have left such a positive track record should simply show they will carefully use the admins tools in the future. Having a spectrum adult son has shown me the value of hardwork and frankness. If I have to choose a single company for the rest of my life, I have no doubt whom I will choose. With that insight from my own experience, I solidly back this candidate. Den... (talk) 08:43, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support my most recent memory of interaction with Sir Sputnik has been around SPI, which was impeccable. There are also a number of interactions around fighting vandalism which were solid. This is one of those cases where I'm surprised to see the nomination for admin as I thought he already was one. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 10:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support per everybody else. WaggersTALK 11:37, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support ?? I already though you were an admin...
    💸 11:38, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  85. Support Trustworthy, experienced and conscientious, with a need for the tools. Acroterion (talk) 12:06, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support This one lands firmly in "I thought they already were an admin" territory. Great track record; Check. No concerns about misuse; Check. Need for tools; Check. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 12:09, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support. I don't remember ever interacting with Sir Sputnik, but that is no bad thing. Enough people who I trust seem to consider Sir Sputnik can be trusted with the tools, and that is enough for me. What they do with them is their choice as long as it is in the interests of improving the encyclopedia, which appears to be the case. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:45, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  88. —Kusma (t·c) 12:49, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support - Sir Sputnik is familiar with the process of article creation, that is a plus, in addition, he chose to become a clerk, fight vandalism, and help at SPI. Net positive. Rowan Forest (talk) 13:22, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support. A clear case of demonstrable need for the tools, based on activity. No behavioural concerns. A well-respected long-term member of the community. Simon Adler (talk) 13:45, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support Given the candidate's need for the tools, the lack of content creation as pointed out in the opposition doesn't concern me. Net positive for the project. Be well! StrikerforceTalk 14:29, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support Good enough content creation. The deleted
    net positive! - tucoxn\talk 14:33, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  93. Support Quality, trustworthy candidate who has been helping out for a long time. To the opposer(s), per usual, the tools have nothing to do with content creation, they are used to maintain the content we already have. Enough of this "content creators are the quarterbacks of Wikipedia!" elitist nonsense. Adminship is a trust position, not a promotion. I trust Sir Sputnik. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support. Hard-working SPI clerk (even during his RfA). For someone who finds it stressful to interact with others he does a wonderful job - clear, civil, and helpful. Finally, the phrase "thoroughly thought through" is a gem.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:25, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support The candidate will be even more of a help at SPI with the bit. Q3 answer no problem here. Miniapolis 15:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support. ~ Rob13Talk 15:50, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support. Fully qualified candidate, no concerns. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:01, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support. I would not like to guess how many times I have come across Sir Sputnik's editing over the years, and I cannot ever remember having any problem with his work. He has a solid and reliable understanding of issues which relate to administrative work, and will be an excellent administrator. The editor who uses the pseudonym "
    talk) 16:25, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  99. Support. Seems like a reasonable and trustworthy candidate. Deryck C. 16:32, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support-WHYNOT? ∯WBGconverse 17:42, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support Lacking in content creation, but not enough to offset the net positive. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 18:44, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support An excellent candidate. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 18:58, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support An absolute support from me and long overdue in my opinion.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:29, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support - based on noms. -
    wolf 19:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  106. Support - clear need for the tools, trusted editor, lots of CLUE, etc. etc. Regarding Transfermarkt, perhaps removing it as "source" is correct, but perhaps it is useful as an "external link"? More towards my area of interest, Discogs is not a reliable source because it is user-generated, but it is certainly a useful resource the same way Wikipedia is user-generated but a useful source. Discogs should not be used as a reference, but it is encouraged to use it in the external link section. In that they are removing the site both as a reference and as an external link, perhaps the candidate could contemplate this course of action? 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 19:50, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support Sir Joseph (talk) 20:12, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support - been around long enough to have more than a clue. Already shown he can be trusted. No reason not to have the mop. Mjroots (talk) 20:26, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support -- The answers to the questions appear to be more than sufficient to me. -- Dolotta (talk) 20:37, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support- No issues at all for me.   Aloha27  talk  20:41, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support wholeheartedly, per my comment in the "oppose" section. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:50, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support Though I would like to see fewer AfD "delete" positions, it is better than some we have seen. There is also a tendency to use one basis for a great many successive edits, it seems, so I am unsure how much thought lies behind each individual edit. Collect (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support--Joshualouie711talk 21:09, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support. Great job at the SPI, and content creation is perfectly adequate. Nsk92 (talk) 23:21, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support. SPI would benefit if Sir Sputnik receives access to admin tools. — Newslinger talk 23:45, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support: Net positive, especially for SPI. — MRD2014 Talk 00:53, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Obvious Support: Excellent work at SPI, always courteous and helpful. Home Lander (talk) 01:19, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support: this user has done some positive work for our encyclopedia & seems to be trustworthy for helping with administrative work. = paul2520 (talk) 01:38, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  119. My interactions with the candidate have been entirely positive, and I find no cause for concern. Vanamonde (talk) 04:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support - I hate to invoke the cliche, but I'm genuinely surprised he isn't already an admin. Exceptional candidate.  Swarm  talk  06:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support Seems like they need the tools and, as others have said, has been and would certainly continue to be a net asset. Chetsford (talk) 06:35, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support seen them at SPI. Good editor and is in need of the tools. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 07:28, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support No problems I can see. ~
    talk 08:23, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  124. Support I wasn't going to !vote, but we're low on admins, and RfA can only get a little better if people are a little more willing to give editors a chance. Sir Sputnik can sometimes make less-than-ideal calls at SPI (but then again, so have I..), but that isn't a good enough reason to oppose or not vote. I hope that if their RfA is successful they will take it slow, ask for help and take on board constructive criticism. Good luck -
    💖 09:20, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  125. Support, not a big deal. Fish+Karate 09:53, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support. Steve Smith (talk) 11:10, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support
    WP:SPI will appreciate all the the extra help it can get. scope_creep (talk) 11:24, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  128. Support -- KTC (talk) 11:31, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Support Denisarona (talk) 11:58, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Support - long overdue.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)
  131. Support Seems reasonably level headed and I don't see any reason why not. --regentspark (comment) 14:49, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  132. feminist (talk) 15:22, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  133. MtG Support (put a +1/+1 counter on candidate). --GRuban (talk) 15:31, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Support – Will be a net benefit to the encyclopedia. His work at SPI is valuable and having the admin tools should make him more effective in that role. EdJohnston (talk) 16:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Support Happy to do so. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:17, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Support. Mediocre content creation, but otherwise good contributions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:19, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Support - Genuinely thought they were an admin already!, Clearly long overdue, I see no red flags or concerns, Easiest support of the year. –Davey2010Talk 18:37, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Support – Aoi (青い) (talk) 19:36, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Support I agree with Kudpung that this is long overdue. Will be responsible with the mop and pail. MarnetteD|Talk 19:44, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Support Seems to be another well rounded candidate. Good luck in this RfA! Neovu79 (talk) 21:23, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Support Per Rowan Forest, also all around seems like a great contributor who could use the rights to help (eg at SPI). --DannyS712 (talk) 21:29, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  142. obviuosly-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:34, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Support. Very articulate, not inclined to overreach, and a clear rationale for the tools: everything looks very good to me. None of the concerns that have been raised seem significant to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:46, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Support. Per the points made above, and that the main reason in the opposition is relatively subjective in nature, and one that I on that basis happen to consider of minor relevance to the prospect of this discussion. If you aren't doing so, you may disregard my request not to point that thing at me. (talk) 00:19, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Support. Tools will help SPI work. Has demonstrated trustworthiness. Aware of the need to be cautious in areas in which he his not familiar and probably won't venture into such areas or will do so only with some guidance. Net positive. Donner60 (talk) 02:15, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Support. Appears to be a strong net positive to the project. Thank you for volunteering. CThomas3 (talk) 02:20, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Easily a benefit to the project. SQLQuery me! 04:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Support - good editor, and experienced.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:32, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Support impressed by editor and responses, shows good temperament, experience and need to hold the bit. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:31, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Support Long term contributor and net positive. Answer 10 was clearly not correct, Oppose concerns should be noted and addressed by this editor. No one is perfect, there is always some room to improve. Good luck.--DBigXrayᗙ 09:43, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Weak support Haven't come across this editor before as far as I can recall. I considered going neutral, as content creation is basically weak (with not a single GA I could see), and AfD record tends to indicate they are deletionist. But as long as they stay in the SPI area and don't range far and wide smiting content creators with abandon, I'm willing to weakly support on the basis that their answers show some clue, and other editors I respect have indicated that they learn from their experiences. Take care with the tools. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:53, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Support good editor making some great contributions. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:29, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Support I believe that he can be trusted with the tools and having them will help with SPI investigations and clerking. Regarding Q10, Sir Sputnik has documented material (good quality for ADMINACCT) which shows that he was following consensus from many threads and it has been recommended at least once to use a cn tag when removing the user-generated source instead of removing the content. By leaving the content, he is allowing non-contentious material the opportunity to be sourced. Removals have been upheld at ANI by two admins. BLP concerns aren't the real crux of that question though since the removals "annoyed the site owners" who happen to be "one of my closet real-life friends" It isn't in the closet that this sounds more like a conflict of interest in the questioning.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I would argue that somebody who has friends who aren't fans of WP and who has a life outside of it probably has less of a conflict of interest than somebody who sits in the echo chamber of the noticeboards and thinks the house point of view is the only one that matters. (It frequently is, to be fair, but I wouldn't trust it to be 100% of the time). In any case, the point was more that if you think a source is unreliable for a claim (and that's a perfectly legitimate viewpoint to hold), why wouldn't you consider the claim that it was sourced by to be factually wrong or dubious? That's kind of the whole point of having the reliable sources policy in the first place, in my view. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Week support I have observed this user's participation in AfDs and he is definitely more of a deletionist than I am. The lack of content creation is concerning, but I think he is generally qualified and has good answers to the questions, so I'll support. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 14:21, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  155. Support Qualified, experienced and thoughtful. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Support More admins in always a good thing; also trusted noms. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 19:44, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  157. Support a net positive.
    Lepricavark (talk) 21:32, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  158. Support, despite the nominee's rather poor response to Q10 and Ritchie333's absolutely valid comments. However, an ideal admin does not exist, and the nominee's strengths, as evidenced by their SPI work, as well as exemplary community trust undoubtedly outweight any weaknesses. — kashmīrī TALK 21:52, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  159. Support, I trust Sir Sputnik to use the tools constructively and am not concerned about relative lack of content creation. Alex Cohn (let's chat!) 22:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  160. Support: Fully qualified editor, clearly has experience in sockpuppetry. (Looking through their contribs, I was especially impressed by how they made the first few requests concerning 089baby's sockpuppetry.) That said, there's no reason why they would abuse the tools. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ToThAc (talk • contribs) 23:44, October 17, 2018 (UTC)
  161. Support: Finally getting the chance to check back in and start poking around at the project again, I'm glad to see Sir Sputnik at RFA. My encounters with him at SPI have been positive throughout, and I firmly believe that this is somebody who has the best interests of the project at heart and is somebody we can count on to help uphold the quality we hope for. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:16, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  162. Support Excellent clerk, encouraging answers to the questions, evidently competent - it's mop time. Yunshui 雲水 12:04, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  163. Support This was long overdue. I believe the candidate to be competent and trustworthy, especially because of their SPI contributions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:05, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  164. Support: Needs the tools and can be trusted. The opposes and neutrals do not convince me that adminship would be a net negative for the candidate. Though I agree the candidate's answer to Q16 seems a bit harsh, I am reassured by the Q17 followup, particularly the phrase "an account with only very small number of edits would likely not fit the bill". I must say that while Ritchie333 makes a valid point, I think they are giving it too much weight due to a very specific and rare personal experience. (IMO the candidate's position is inline with
    WP:MINREF, and the problem is with MINREF itself.) — Bilorv(c)(talk) 15:29, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  165. Support Yes please ~Awilley (talk) 17:05, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  166. Support. No issues here.
    ZettaComposer (talk) 19:26, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  167. Support. – I believe Sir Sputnik will be a net positive for the admin corps. –FlyingAce✈hello 19:48, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  168. Support, piling on here, willing and competent in SPI, give them all the tools they need. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:49, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  169. Support - Sir Sputnik has been highly active at SPI, and given how I frequently handle his admin action requests on SPI reports when I see them pop up - I know that he does a complete and thorough job of making sure that all relevant evidence and information is found, gathered, taken into account, and considered - and the proper decisions and recommendations made based on careful and well-documented decision-making. Not only will having the admin toolset result in Sir Sputnik being able to carry out actions from start-to-finish on
    SPI reports, having the toolset also means that I won't have to carry out any of his administrator action requests for him in SPI anymore :-). It's not that doing so ever was a burden or an inconvenience (I edit and help others because I want to), but given the number of projects I'm involved with now, and the many different logs, lists, edit filters, tools, page histories, and live feeds that I monitor simultaneously and for issues and disruption that I handle and resolve behind-the-scenes - having one less thing to keep an eye out and an ear open for is totally fine with me ;-). Supporting is a true win/win here. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:12, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  170. Support I am happy to add my praise and support. Capt. Milokan (talk) 02:08, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  171. Support Trustworthy, experienced contributor and clerk. S.A. Julio (talk) 02:28, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  172. Support The candidate has a reasonable need for the administrator's tools and a track record that indicates that those tools will be used wisely and fairly. I have taken a careful look at the arguments to oppose, and find them unconvincing. My preference would be for more detailed content creation but each of us decides how and in which way we volunteer. And this candidate's overall contributions to the encyclopedia are overwhelmingly positive. That is good enough for me. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:05, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  173. Support, not that this guy needs my support at this late date. I predict he will be one of the least troublesome and hassle-free admins ever. – Athaenara ✉ 05:44, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  174. Support Late to this one, which isn't a bad thing as it gives me a good chance to peruse the neutral and opposes. Not seeing much there to suggest they wouldn't make a fine admin. AIRcorn (talk) 06:34, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  175. Support --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 08:31, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  176. Support Having mulled this over during the past few days, I can't see any of the concerns I have raised being showstoppers, and the answer to Q17 is satisfactory. I just can't picture him going around blocking good faith editors deliberately, and I am pretty confident he would be amenable to unblocks if polite disagreement occurs. I do not have a problem with Sir Sputnik's level of content creation, which is absolutely fine, and opposition to that is, to be honest, wide of the mark. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:46, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  177. Support - a trusted long-time editor with lots of experience in his specific area of interest. GermanJoe (talk) 14:13, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  178. Support Has a long history of helpful contributions and has a clear need for the tools to aid the project. Has my trust. Best, SpencerT•C 14:48, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  179. Support Yes, please! Courcelles (talk) 15:31, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  180. Support - user clearly knows what they are doing. Kirbanzo (talk) 17:26, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  181. Support talk to !dave 18:56, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  182. pile-on support overdue.
    talk) 20:35, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  183. Support, per the usual reasons. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 20:51, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  184. Support The oppose votes seem pretty minor. A personal opinion: even if someone has not made a lot of mainspace contribs, there is still plenty of work to do in other maintenance-oriented areas. His sharp, reasoned answers to the additional questions indicate someone with a head on their shoulders.
    talk) 00:48, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  185. Support Yes please! I support!
    talk) 02:37, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  186. Support I believe this user is qualified. --Boothsift (talk) 03:52, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  187. Support The concerns about content creation are overblown and, frankly, irrelevant. Nihlus 05:09, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  188. Support. Candidate is experienced and, in my view, will carefully use the rights.
     ■ 15:04, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  189. Support. Needs the tools for a specific purpose. So what if hes not the greatest content creator, you don't need to be a pilot to run an airline Lyndaship (talk) 17:32, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  190. Support — Pilling on; the relative lack of content creation worries me a bit, however, that is overshadowed by Sir Sputnik's rather excellent record as a sockpuppet investigations clerk and all around cool user. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 20:07, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  191. Support per above. Legoktm (talk) 20:58, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  192. nepaxt 23:12, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  193. Support per a consistent positive impression of his edits over the years. No qualms. Airplaneman ✈ 01:55, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  194. Support. User appears to be a net positive for a position that's supposed to be no big deal, anyways. Ejgreen77 (talk) 02:35, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  195. Support of course. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:44, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  196. Support A fine candidate. Mtminchi08 (talk) 06:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  197. Support Very easy to work with & clear need for the mop (though maybe I'm biased). Sro23 (talk) 07:11, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  198. Support no reason to oppose. Banedon (talk) 08:42, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  199. Support Not sure I can vote since I'm not an admin, but wanted to note I've found Sir Sputnik a rational user who I trust to help with cleanup anyways. SportingFlyer talk 13:35, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @SportingFlyer: Non-admins are more than welcome to !vote; in fact most !voters are not admins.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 13:44, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  200. Support good candidate, need more!--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 15:41, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose, This user has added very little content added to the mainspace. Looking at their mainspace contributions, almost all of them are removing content. This user has created a lot of articles (208), but almost half of them are stubs (92), and only two of them have a higher rating then "start". —Eli355 (👄👄👄👄 • 📜📜📜📜 • 🍩🍩🍩🍩) 21:00, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved to Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:34, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose per Ritchie333 and TNT and the explanation that was given to Q10. I was going to sit this one out, but removing any sourcing from a BLP to make it go from "poorly sourced statement" to "unsourced statement" is really bad and pushes me here from sitting this out. It shows a hyperliteral view of content policy that misses the forest for the trees, and I think as an administrator that type of view might extend to their administrative judgements. We need admins who take into account the whole context of the situation, which I don't think Sir Sputnik will do. I'm confident this is going to pass, and I don't think there will be any tool abuse, but I really am shocked that we have an admin candidate who thinks that it's a good idea to do what basically amounts to adding unsourced content to BLPs. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:46, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Excuse my badgering, but you mentioned me - in this situation, finding another source would have obviously been the better thing to do. I don't think Sir Sputnik's view is that removing sources from BLPs is A-OK, nor does it appear they have a "hyperliteral view of content policy". I struggle to see how this would negatively affect the candidates ability to make administrative judgement calls. Just my 2p 🤷 -
    💖 15:19, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I think he typically handles promotion very poorly at SPI, which is why I was citing you on the less than ideal bit (see here for an example, but I could find more if needed). It was why I told Katie I had planned on opposing before this started, but because I have faith in her and GAB's judgement I held off, and because people could make the same critique of me in the opposite direction. The BLP thing pushed me over the edge. In my view Sir Sputnik gets it wrong on the two most important things on Wikipedia: the BLP policy and preventing ourselves from being overrun by spam.
    Finding a way to justify keeping random facts about footballers in an article while removing the source, and thus any semblance of credibility we have for a living person, is the type of bad judgement call for something that should be common sense that I'm afraid he'd make as an admin. He'll likely make a fine admin, but I personally don't think he's ready for it yet. The community seems to disagree with me, though, which is fine.(Also, I'd prefer if people didn't jump on and move this to the talk page.) TonyBallioni (talk) 15:34, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) What really stuck in my craw is not so much what Sir Sputnik did but the response to it : "My objection is only to the source, not the content it's used to support." I can think of any number of more acceptable responses eg: "I just didn't think the date was particularly controversial, I'll go and add a source now", "Fair comment, I've removed the text", "I've worked on a lot of football articles like this and there are expert editors crawling over this who know the subject area a bit better; I appreciate BLP but past experience has given me confidence it would get fixed while I focused my priorities elsewhere. I can't do everything." or "I couldn't find any better sources but yeah I should have tagged the text with {{
    fact
    }}     and I'll do that now. I'm confident somebody who can speak Dutch better than me will be able to get a suitable source quickly enough. It's only a career statistic, it's not accusing him of murder."
    I just think "x is an unreliable source" is so unhelpful, and context is really important. For example, I don't think it's a big secret that I don't think The Sun should be used on BLPs anywhere. Yet I can appreciate using it as a backup source for the real name of Dida (footballer, born 1973) as it's fairly innocuous, whereas this is mildly controversial (couples don't necessarily want the whole world to know they're dating, and how would they feel if they split up?) but possible to source from elsewhere, while edits like this should be removed, aggressively, until somebody produces a BLP-compliant source for them. It's not enough for me to oppose over a handful of incidents, and I'm happy to believe that now I've told Sir Sputnik this, he'll understand where I'm coming from and take care with BLPs in the future. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:52, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You actually made a pretty good point re: learning. Moving to neutral after talking to you and TNT. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:07, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to add, such situations are exactly the reason why templates like {{unreliable source}} or {{better source}} exist. We should NEVER remove actual sources of information, even if we don't like them; at most we should add a tag. (For clarity, I am not talking here of refspam). — kashmīrī TALK 12:42, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Per lack of content creation. Consistently over the past year, less than 30 percent of his monthly contributions are to the mainspace. At the end of the day, we are here to build an encyclopedia. I'm also concerned by the BLP issues raised by TNT and Ritchie333. ceranthor 12:55, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @
    wolf 01:01, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Someone already oppose !voted based on "not enough content creation" before, one should probably read this discussion to avoid saying what has already been said. SemiHypercube ✎ 11:32, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @
    Thewolfchild and SemiHypercube: I was aware of the badgering of Eli355 and decided to oppose anyway, because I am underwhelmed with Sir Sputnik's content work. Sir Sputnik does good work at SPI, but I've been an administrator since 2010, and I would appreciate not being condescendingly told that I "should probably read" a discussion "to avoid saying what has already been said" when I think Eli355's point was perfectly valid. Now please don't badger me or Eli355 any further; this RfA is likely to pass, and I doubt I will be changing my !vote. ceranthor 13:07, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    @
    wolf 13:43, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    @
    Thewolfchild: First of all, Wikipedia is far from built; take a look at the quality of some of our most vital articles. Second, I didn't fail to reply to your question because it was inconvenient; rather, it was because I had no desire to be further questioned about my decision to oppose. Third, as for your concern about content creation, I think that administrators should have more familiarity with writing mainspace content than making a bunch of stubs and start class articles. In my opinion as a heavily content-oriented contributor, administrators should have featured content or at least one or two good articles under their belt. And now, fourth, to answer your question... no, I do not think Sir Sputnik would be abusive nor incompetent as an administrator, but I think that there are many users who are not sysops, as well as many who would likely never pass an RfA, who would be decent admins, and yet that does not mean I would necessarily support their RfA. It is just not a black and white issue as far as I am concerned. ceranthor 14:16, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    @
    WP:ST that you gave, only a little over 10% of our articles are rated C-class or above. I'd say it's absolutely nowhere near "built". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:44, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I'm not going to get into the "content work is necessary for adminship" argument right now, but the notion that the encyclopedia is complete is an extremely damaging notion that needs to be stamped out. Our coverage of basic history, geography, natural history, and biography only comes close to being satisfactory for the anglosphere since the beginning of the internet; and there's gaps even there. Our guidelines say that basically every named human habitation is notable; we're nowhere close to covering those. Virtually every head of state is likely notable; there are plenty of 19th and 20th century heads of state that are still redlinks. Virtually every described vertebrate is going to meet GNG; we are not close to having an article on each one. The WIR event last year created thousands of articles on notable women. I could go on. The point is we have consistent high-quality coverage only in those areas in which enough competent editors are interested. Step outside those relatively narrow areas, and there's huge gaps. Have people forgotten the Donna Strickland debacle already? Vanamonde (talk) 19:24, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm, yes... perhaps I should have phrased that differently. But to be clear, I didn't say "complete". When I said "built", (and linked to ST) the point was, with almost 6 million articles, there is framework that has been built here, and it needs to be maintained. Look at all project maintenance boards and processes there are. Look at all the backlogs. We need admins. Admins who are good at maintaining certain areas. We also need more editors. Editors who are good researchers and writers. WP is losing both, admins and writers, every month. So, yes... go ahead and rail on about all the articles we have that need improving, all the articles we need that we don't even have yet, and then explain to me why nitpicking over a candidate's "content numbers", and actually opposing that candidate when by your own admission you know he'll be a good admin, explain how that in any way helps with the overall problems this project is facing? I've said it before, this process is broken, because it is. We have people here acting as if they're HR managers, screening hundreds of applicants for a single position, and looking for reasons to reject applicants until that perfect one comes along. That's not how it is. We have far more positions than we have applicants (especially experienced, qualified applicants), IOW there is no set or maximum number of admins. If we have someone willing to take it on, and they will be able to help out in some areas and not be abusive or incompetent the others, then we should be glad to have to them. Jeezus, Ritchie, how many noms have you put forward, only to have people dump on them with some ridiculous opposes? This is Requests for Administrators, not "Requests for good content creators". Build up the admin corps, which will help keep the backlogs down, the vandalism in check and better regulate the content disputes, then hopefully we'll stop driving away good writers, and maybe even start attracting a few. - Bah... this is now longer than I intended. The gist of it is; we have a demonstrably good candidate. To post an 'oppose' !vote because his socks don't match seems kind of pointless. -
    wolf 21:13, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    @Ceranthor: Sorry, but if your 30,000 edits over 11 years are sufficient content work for your admin rights, I don't see how the nominee's 120,000 edits and many more pages created over the same time are suddenly a problem. Sure, this is editcountism, but still. — kashmīrī TALK 21:58, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Seriously? Or you know the dozens of FAs and GAs I've written / helped write and dozens of reviews at FAC and GAN I've given over the years... this is why people don't oppose RfAs, because of the badgering. Now, I'm going back to writing articles, and I ask you leave me alone and stop pinging me. Thanks. ceranthor 23:11, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, don't see all this hostility as being necessary. I don't know what your stats were at your third RfA, but when you
    wolf 02:21, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    So now I am hostile for defending my opinion? And my first RfA was in 2009... 9 years ago, when I was very much a minor. Now, I would appreciate it if you stopped hounding me and let me have my opinion, and I will let you have yours. ceranthor 02:38, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, your previous post seemed kind of hostile. And I pointed out some inconsistencies. Look, you seem angry, but if you say you're not, I'll believe you (and try to remember that I also thanked you for all your work). I'm certainly not "hounding" you, I didn't ping you, before or now. If you choose to keep coming back and participating, that's on you. Again, have a nice day. -
    wolf 02:59, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    They do not, in fact, come across as angry at all! ——SerialNumber54129 12:22, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose - based on the answers to questions 16 and 17. Sir Sputnik may well be a perfectly satisfactory administrator and it looks as if that is the way this RfA is going, but I am seriously concerned about his attitude to blocking other editors. In the case of persistent promotional editing, the problem is usually connected with paid editing, but he makes no mention of asking the editor to disclose any conflicts of interest, or of giving them any warnings on their conduct, but instead goes straight to blocking the editor "immediately and indefinitely". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:37, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    At the risk of being labelled a "badger" (or maybe a wolverine, that sounds cooler), I don't really see the concerns you're expressing, after reading the candiadate's answers to #16 & #17 (nor apparently, do the other 180+ supporters). But that said, you've just stated that you believe Sir Sputnik will make a "perfectly satisfactory administrator"... so why oppose? If you believe he'll make a good admin, despite some concerns, why not post those concerns under 'neutral' or 'comments', or even with 'weak support'? It seems odd that your opposing someone you seem to basically approve of. (And with that, I can't help but ask for clarification. Sorry if that is in any way upsetting for you.) Thanks -
    wolf 02:34, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    @
     ■ 15:00, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    @
    wolf 19:15, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  4. Oppose - this user by far do not deserve to be an admin.he will probably start to ban people for nothing.kolya77 (talk)
    I suspect this opinion is informed by this warning from March 2017 prompted by these discussions. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:14, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Kolya77, the candidate should be nicer to people who do not follow the guidelines, rather than just yell at them with a {{Uw-npa4}} for a single minor infraction. —Eli355 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @
    WP:BOOMERANG will be a good read for them. — kashmīrī TALK 19:11, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  5. Oppose, and Thewolfchild, you don't need to waste your time trying your school bully routine on me as it won't work. While I'm not in the "must have written a featured article" camp, I don't think editors who haven't had the experience of putting large amounts of work into an article, and/or defending their work against well-intentioned but wrong "improvements" or especially AFD, are in a position to empathise with quite why editors get so angry when their work's deleted and/or
    Iridescent 08:42, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  6. Oppose - per Ceranthor and Iri. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:59, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral

Neutral - Leaning oppose? I'm concerned about the answer to question 3. While the candidate has spun it in a way to make it sound like a positive, I'm not so sure that it is a positive. Sure we need more admins to hold their horses before they take action but that is not what I am concerned about. It's how they will handle the additional stress of the tools because the administration tool-set tends to paint a bulls-eye on to their actions. Would it be strange (or dare I say, right?) to oppose for the candidate's own benefit? For now, I'll sit in neutral. -=Troop=- (talk) 16:18, 14 October 2018 (UTC) MKDW makes a valid point. I live with someone with Asperger's Syndrome and it may have coloured my opinion on this somewhat. Comment retracted. Best wishes to the candidate. -=Troop=- (talk) 16:52, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, leaning support. Will vote after I’ve done some research. Sakaimover (talk) 04:19, 15 October 2018 (UTC) CU- Confirmed sockpuppet - see SPI. GABgab 14:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Neutral, not sure where I lean on this one at this point. Will revisit soon. --TheSandDoctor Talk 22:44, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral Per TonyBallioni (above in Oppose section). I'm not sure that Sir Sputnik's editing behavior rises to the level of being disqualifying (in the context of his other positive contributions), but I can't wholeheartedly support at this time. (In regard to the Transfermarkt situation, it would have been far better to either follow up with each removal and add a reliable source or remove the unsourced material, or retain each Transfermarkt citation and add a dated
    Better source needed tag.) ebbillings (talk) 15:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  3. Neutral (moved from oppose) Ritchie333's comment to my oppose convinced me to move here, and caused me to reflect on the nomination statements both by GAB and Katie, both of whom are colleagues I hold in the highest regard.
    Something that stuck out to me from Katie's nom was that she said that Sir Sputnik can always take into account feedback. Ritchie's comments above reminded me that one of my biggest issues with RfA is that we oppose people for mistakes that if they ever got the bit they wouldn't make again because they remember the feedback so well. Taking that in mind with the fact that some of the editors who know him best say that he is always open to feedback, I'm fine parking myself here even though I still have some misgivings. I'd echo other editors comments to take on board any criticisms. Good luck with the bit TonyBallioni (talk) 16:07, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral, leaning towards oppose. For me, it's still no big deal. I check that a user meets basic criteria and that there's nothing negative that stands out. User does meet all criteria but TonyBallioni, whose opinion matters to me, brings up a valid issue to oppose. Holding here while I look a little farther. Ifnord (talk) 02:54, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral Candidate seems to react well to criticism and is well mannered. Although I'm impressed with most of their answers, I'm unimpressed with their answer to Ritchie333 because the candidate didn't attempt to look for more reliable sources before just leaving that information in the aforementioned article. The candidate has plenty of other good qualities, but their misapplication of sourcing policies when it comes to BLP's just doesn't sit well with me, and is enough for me to withhold support at this time. Other than that, keep up the good work!—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral This will obviously pass and I wish the candidate well but I am unimpressed with some of their answers, for example Q5 (WP:Five pillars is not a policy!) and Q10. --Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:29, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    wolf 02:21, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    So I wasn't the only one who saw this. Strictly speaking
    contribs) 21:12, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    This is why I'm abstaining. When I ask, "what's the most important policy" the answer "all of them" is a bit underwhelming. It irks me for some reason. Reyk YO! 21:06, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral I see a lot of positive things but their global contributions are quite low. I will support if I see an improvement in global contributions. This user doesn't even have 250 edits on Wikis other than English Wikipedia. I normally see global contributions when I support a RfA. Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:33, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral per Pawnkingthree and Reyk. --
    talk) 20:04, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
General comments

I do not think L293D question (Q8) is necessary because SS will rarely deal with UAA in my opinion Hhkohh (talk) 15:00, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment on the answer to Q10, the underlying context to the question comes from this discussion (you need to register to read that but I'll give you the basic gist in a minute) thread ten years ago, where a bunch of people removed citations to websites as "unreliable sources" but kept the underlying content. This annoyed the site owners, who could have been experienced FA writers by now, but were so bitten by this experience that they quit and have spent the last ten years criticising Wikipedia in a way that makes Wikipediocracy look like seasoned amateurs!

Specifically, "Well, that's nice, isn't it. "Not suitable for usage as a source or external link". OK, then, well can you please remove all the stuff you've half-inched off [my site] then over the years? It seems that you've got an article on [something I researched] - and guess where's about the only place on the Internet with any details, eh? It really, really brasses me off that Wikipedia just takes [my site] and regurgitates it into rubbish, and then has the temerity to moan about the quality of the site? If it's so useless, then why do you want the information anyway? Muppets." and "Ugh, that is overly pedantic and based on pedanticity. They clearly don't like people using the site as a link but would rather they copy your ... original research and hours of hard work trawling through archives etc, their loss. Making it fun is no problem, your content is sourced meticulously, your site will still exist and be more informative than the unverified plagiarised stuff on Wikipedia, it's their loss."

I can't work out whether to support Sir Sputnik or not; I think I might just sit this one out and go with consensus. It looks like the RfA is going to pass with flying colours, so just have a think about what I've written here and keep it in the back of your mind as you wield your mop and bucket. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:25, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • With much respect, Ritchie333, I think it is a bit rough to bring up something from a closed off-site forum ten years ago. Ten years is more than enough time for someone to change their opinion about WP; and that some people left FA ten years ago possibly because of this can't fairly be put at one editor's feet. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:35, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Ten years is more than enough time for someone to change their opinion about WP" Indeed it is; however in this case the person is one of my closest real-life friends and I am absolutely sure he has not. The point was more that seemingly innocuous activities that appear to backed up completely with policy can have wide reaching implications if you're not careful. I have given some more examples upthread. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:42, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get a temporary

WP:BADGER, much. ——SerialNumber54129 19:24, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Iridescent 19:30, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
I guess this makes 14. Look, I asked some of the opposers to clarify their posts. The majority of my posts are replies to comments directed at me. It's one thing if "Serial#" or "Iridescent" disagree, but being called a bully, posting links without context and asking for a ban is a bit much. But you can relax, this RfA is basically done and so am I. Unless someone specifically directs a question at me, I won't be posting further. With all this "counter-badgering" and personal attacks, it's not worth the grief. Have a nice day. -
wolf 19:50, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
You've by now descended into trolling, so you'll garner little sympathy with cries of "counter-badgering" (which, incidentally, is an admission). You may well cease now; we will see how you behave at the next RfA. As Iridescent points out, you have established form in this behaviour which has clearly not gone unnoticed. And stop telling people to "have a nice day", you're not working in McDonald's now. ——SerialNumber54129 20:03, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@
talk) 20:02, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Sir_Sputnik&oldid=1142573128"