User talk:I'm Spartacus!/CSD Award/Archive

Winner Reviews

December 15-21 2008 - Discospinster

I reviewed about 20 of Discospinster's speedy deletions. I was very impressed because I didn't find any that should not have been deleted or where I would have deleted it under a different criteria. Almost all of Disco's deletions are A7's, that seems to be his niche. In his past 500 deletions, he has not deleted a single A1 or G1---which are often used as the default values to delete articles that shouldn't be speedily deleted. Disco never deleted an article after another admin denied the deletion. Disco didn't delete articles on his own, but rather tagged them with the appropriate tag allowing another admin to delete the article, while not required, I like to see the use of PROD/AFD. He also used PROD and AFD where appropriate. Disco's talk page was clean and he did respond to others when they approached him and was civil. He also went out of his way to help others and this isn't the only occassion I noted! He also declined speedy deletion requests when they were in appropriate. Based upon the quality of his work, I was a little surprised he didn't remove more bad tags. This had me wondering if he sometimes left bad tags knowing that somebody else would delete it? This isn't so much a concern about him, but about the environment of CSD. It almost seems as if people at CSD know that removing a bad tag won't amount to much because somebody else will restore it and another admin will delete it.

Recommendations for growth When removing bad tags, I would like to see him notify the user who placed the tag and explain why the article wasn't deleted. The field guide to proper speedy deletion is an excellent resource to refer people to.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 09:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

December 22-28 2008 - Faithlessthewonderboy

Faithlessthewonderboy is not one of our most active CSD admins, but my review of his deletions were very favorable. He actually has other editors complimenting his work in the process.

Recommendations for growth When removing bad tags, I would like to see him notify the user who placed the tag and explain why the article wasn't deleted. The field guide to proper speedy deletion is an excellent resource to refer people to. I think this is going to be a perennial recommendation.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 08:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

December 29, 2008 - Jan 4, 2009 Skier Dude

Skier Dude is an admin who works in a highly niche area of wikipedia. Not only does he work with images, but is invovled in IFD/MFD. Many of his deletions are the result of IFD/MFD, but he is also active with CSD. He is one of the few admins to work CSD on images. That does not, however, stop him from performing other CSD work. I've reviewed a number of his edits. He does a great job with A7 deletions. I did, however, notice two deletions that I felt were tagged with the wrong tag---but both were deletable per other criteria. The first one was deleted per A1. A1 is for very short articles where the subject is not identifiable. The article in question was not a very short article, and the subject was identifiable. That being said, the article was clearly deletable per A7. The other article was Sunny7742. This article was deleted per G1, but the article wasn't patent nonsense as defined by WP:NONSENSE. The article was not so completely and irredeemably confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever. The person used a hard to read font, but it was coherent. It was also clearly vandalism or A7. Skier Dude rarely uses the two most abused CSD categories---G1 and A1 when deleting articles. Not relying upon those two categories is a sign of somebody who pays a little more attention to what they are doing and what they are deleting.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 07:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Jan 5-12, 2009 - Nancy

Stumbling upon Nancy was a breadth of fresh air. I was starting to wonder if my award was going to go unclaimed this week, you see I had reviewed three other users. One over used G1 for everything, including articles that were not patent nonsense. The other used A7 on articles where there were clear claims to importance. They didn't meet bio/n, but A7 deliberately has a lower threshold than that. The third person was OK. He didn't delete anything that shouldn't have been deleted, but he used the wrong rationale a lot.

I reviewed almost 40 of Nancy's deletions from the past week and 10 from prior weeks and could find a single deletion that I had a qualm with. I mean, there were none where I even said "I would have used a different criteria." She is meticulous with her work and probably does the best work I've seen so far! I was particularly impressed with her talk page where she truly helps people understand why their articles were speedily deleted and what they need to do to avoid it.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 05:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Jan 13-19, 2009 - DGG

When it comes to CSD, there are few editors whose opinion I respect as much as DGG's. We may not always agree, but he is among the best of the best.---I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon 05:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Jan 20-26, 2009 - Peruvianllama

I didn't find any egregious errors with Peruvianllama deletions, there were a few that were borderline, particularly with regards to wp:nonsense. But I chose to give them the benefit of the doubt, as the articles he deleted G1 probably could have been deleted under another criteria.---I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon 05:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)