Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rspeer

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

Rspeer[edit]

final (39/5/4) ending 18:05 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Rspeer (talk · contribs) – Self-nom. After a year and a half on Wikipedia, I've decided that now I have the time to be an admin. I don't plan to significantly change my editing habits if I become one, but I've realized it could make some of the things I do, like cleaning up project space and reverting vandalism, easier.

I have contributed to Wikipedia since July 2004, and I have now made over 2,000 edits. An area that I have focused on in particular is the Voting systems WikiProject, where I hope to help create a thorough, NPOV reference on voting theory - something that is generally missing from the Web. I've also been involved in cleaning up things in project and Help: space, because I think we can get good new contributors more quickly if we make our processes understandable, make our documentation comprehensible, and lower our technical barriers to entry.

I have over 300 articles on my watchlist. I monitor these articles for vandalism, remove external link spam, and clean them up if they get too crufty. Sometimes these are topics I'm specifically interested in, and sometimes I found them on "Random article" and felt obligated to work on them, instead of adding to the cleanup backlog, despite having no interest in the topic whatsoever.

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editcountitis

For anyone who is concerned about my rate of editing (my edit count over time), I should point out that I spend, on average, a couple hours every day working on Wikipedia. It is quite possible, though, that I only make 5 or so edits in that couple of hours. Working on the Voting system article, for example, required spending lots of time on research and tracking down sources, something that doesn't translate into edits. I read a lot of Wikipedia policy discussions, but I don't often join in unless I feel I have something significant to say. If I'm cleaning up a large page, I do it all in one go if possible.

I don't do anything solely to increase my edit count. I don't use my user account like a bot, and if I ever write a bot it's going to be a separate account, as encouraged by the rules. If I continued with my editing style and made the 1000 edits a month that some people seem to expect from admin candidates, I would be spending 20 hours a day on Wikipedia. Or, if I had to be constantly editing when I'm on so I could maintain such a rapid rate of edits, I would enjoy it less and I would make myself susceptible to re-developing RSI.

I encourage you to look at the content of my edits instead of my edit count, although I know that's harder and can't be summarized in four digits. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept my self-nomination. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support. Not a knock-out candidate, but solid enough. From what I'm seeing as I look around talk pages, this user certainly does his part to abide by WP:CIV. Maybe now you've got some extra time, you should look into some other more admin-related areas of Wikipedia (like conflict resolution) so you can better use the admin tools that I hope you get. JHMM13 (T | C) 19:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Cool signature. Trusted not to abuse tools. --TantalumTelluride 22:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Looks like a solid, well-rounded user focused on building an encyclopedia. –Joke 22:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I'm surprised that somebody with his record is put in a position of having to defend himself against editcountitis. He's been here steadily for quite some time, is usually sensible and takes constructive criticism well, and has successfully shepherded through a featured article on a subject that's a magnet for people with a hobbyhorse to ride. What more should he have to do to show we can trust him? --Michael Snow 00:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support per Michael Snow. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Naconkantari e|t||c|m 03:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. Elf-friend 07:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support.. per michael snow. pschemp | talk 08:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support, looks good, and Michael Snow can be persuasive when he wants to be ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 09:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support, yes, definitely. Meets my standards. Polite and knowledgable. Proto||type 10:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. Ticks every box he needs to, and per Edit counting Waggers 10:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support, long participation, good edits and to site WP:ADMIN again "Wikipedia policy is to grant this access liberally to anyone who has been an active Wikipedia contributor for a while and is generally a known and trusted member of the community". feydey 13:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Strong Support Edit counts are not everything. The user is immensely experienced and I feel he deserves to be given the mop. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. No indication he'd misuse the tools. Turning experienced editors down for adminship on the grounds that they don't edit enough does not make sense. Friday (talk) 14:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support seems good.  Grue  16:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support looks good to me. Essexmutant 17:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support - I like what I see. This editor could be a bit more active (2000 edits over 1.5 years could be considered thin-spread). --ZsinjTalk 17:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Robert 20:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Strong Support It's OK to have a life outside of Wikipedia. Jcam 20:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. support. --Irpen 00:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. Not that many edits, but has been here for a while. Was very civil to me. —Ruud 02:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. support: Good evidence that candidate is a solid contributor dedicated to building an encyclopedia, especially considering quality edits in helping bring an article to featured status. Ombudsman 02:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support As per above and most of all works well with others. —-- That Guy, From That Show! (talk) 2006-02-25 05:32Z
  25. Support —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-25 06:12Z
  26. Yes please. Rob's case does appear to illustrate the unwisdom of mistaking number of edits for value of contributions. ENCEPHALON 11:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. Mushroom (Talk) 14:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. --Dragon695 07:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. Dragons flight 19:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support, solid contributions and very civil. Kuru talk 06:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support The nominee's own comments strike me as more convincing than the opposes. Contrib's are just fine even if spread out over time and seems thoughtful editor. Marskell 09:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support He has a laudable 100% use of edit summaries and his edit count has increased over time and averages 270 per month over the last three months. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. Good user, adminship should be no big deal. +sj + 19:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. Seen him around, like his style, has been involved in Wikipedia:Discussions_for_adminship (you should be too!), and anyone that Michael Snow and Mindspillage endorse has to have some major positive qualities. His edit count is fine, and the kerfluffle about voting by User:cmouse, below, is not relevant. (we have 5 computers on my home network, on any given day they are going to have the same IP... so what? That does NOT prove meatpuppetry) ++Lar: t/c 06:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support I see no big problem.--Jusjih 00:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Unlikely to abuse administrator tools. Sockpuppetry is undesirable but the evidence provided below is quite weak. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support, looks OK. JIP | Talk 10:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. Seems like a good editor and the reasons given for opposing seem unconvincing. Creating admins should be "no big deal". --G Rutter 13:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. Per above, especially what Michael Snow said. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 18:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - well, of course. Rob Church (talk) 22:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the support! I'm going to be fair and strike your vote because it arrived after voting closed. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose I like the user but I don't like the number of edits to the main namespace in over a year and a half, 894. User could benefit if he was steady in article editing. Moe ε 21:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Although you are free to oppose, I'd like you to read my comment about edit counts above. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If you wanted another reason as to why I voted oppose is because of lack of communication with other users which is essential for adminship on top of the edit count. Everything else seems fine. Moe ε 23:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. I don't see the evidence that the low edit history is due to the extensive scope of the individual edits as claimed by the nominee. While some of the edits are extensive, the majority are typical. I don't see the scope of experience or evidence that the admin tools are needed. I suppose if it wasn't a self-nomination I might be moved to neutral. – Doug Bell talk•contrib 23:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Does not meet admin criteria Juppiter 01:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Activity in main namespace over time period does not match up with stated admin chores of wishing to revert vandalism, manually reverting without godmode light is not that difficult and would have greatly inflated a moderltley active editors edit count over the time concerced. There is a great deal to be said for letting good editors get on with being good editors rather than letting them be side tracked into admin chores, so without a significantly better contribution to those chorse prior to being an admin... Being an admin is not a promotion or reward. --pgk(talk) 01:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Why should I want to inflate my edit count? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose On this AFD, he made an edit by accident as User:Cmouse, whom he said was his girlfriend and he used a computer where she was logged in by accident. Now, that's all understandable, but I notice on Karmafist's Arbcom voting page, both Rspeer and Cmouse voted within three minutes of each other! Sorry, but that's just too close to sockpuppetry (or perhaps meatpuppetry) to be ignored. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    How long did you have to dig to find that one coincidence? We are different people. We work on different things. We even tend to avoid participating in the same votes. But she reads the Signpost just like I do, and we both met the conditions to vote on ArbCom, so we did. We made our decisions independently; note that we voted on different sets of people. I think it should be seen as a generally positive thing that I have another Wikipedian in my life.
    You also didn't need to look so hard for evidence that we are connected somehow; right there in the contributions section of my talk page is an acknowledgement that Cmouse and I wrote the article on the album Wearing Someone Else's Clothes while working from the same computer.
    rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So you're telling me, then, that the two votes cast three minutes apart (and likely coming from the same PC) were made without any attempt at collusion? You try to avoid participating in the same votes but that one time it happened because of coincidence? Just making sure I fully understand what you're trying to say here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, except for the part about coming from the same PC. It's quite common for us both to be online doing something at the same time, one of us on the desktop computer and the other on the laptop, and if the votes were three minutes apart, that had to be such a situation. The situation where we're working together on an article is different. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's amazing, because in addition to Karmafist's Arbcom, you both voted on James F's Arbcom as well as Fred Bauder's. In fact, the only time Cmouse voted but you didn't was Simon P's. If you really "avoid participating in the same votes", then you don't seem to be doing very well at it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And how about all the times I voted and Cmouse didn't? And how about all the other votes and surveys I've been involved in? I said "tend to", not "we never participate in the same votes ever". She had suffrage from ArbCom and I wasn't going to stop her from using it just so I could look utterly pristine in an RfA a month and a half later. Avoiding participating in the same votes is a self-imposed thing that was intended to remove doubts, but it doesn't seem to have worked very well.
    It seems that, fundamentally, you and Moe are refusing to believe that female Wikipedians exist and make decisions of their own, and that it is somehow more likely that a long-time Wikipedia user would invent one to engage in sockpuppetry, or something like that. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I find this exchange off-putting, to say the least. Whatever happened to assuming good faith? –Joke 19:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    First off, I take a bit of offense at the suggestion that I don't exist! I'll provide you a few links. [1] [2] I am even more offended that you seem to believe that I would do something on wikipedia because Rob told me to or that I have the same interests and opinions as Rob. Have you looked at my edits? I have different interests and edit different articles. I don't believe Rob even knows which articles I edit. And I certainly have many opinions which differ from his. Just ask him about that. And yes, Rob told me about this. I just got home and it was a bit hard not to notice that Rob was looking a bit upset.Cmouse 23:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I totally agree with Joke: WP:AGF. I happen to know both Rob and his gf in real life (but I found this page on my own.. and I'm not voting), and Rob's story here does make sense. Mangojuice 06:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Neutral

  1. Neutral I had conflect with this user before but I don't want to do a oppose, staying neutral --Jaranda wat's sup 20:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral - frequency of edits is not an issue for me, but experience in communicating with other users is. I am very close to supporting though. Raven4x4x 01:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral Needs to interact more with others DaGizzaChat © 05:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. NeutralOn the one hand, I would prefer more additions than deletions. On the other, handled the sockpocket accusation more better than some people might.Mikereichold 08:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 18:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Rspeer's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A. I will continue to help revert vandalism, and do so more efficiently with the help of rollback. (I have never gotten the JavaScript "godmode light" to work correctly.) I may close some PROD deletions if it keeps going and becomes policy, but I'd rather not let deletion take too much time away from working on the encyclopedia. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I've brought the Voting system article to featured status, and I'm really happy about that article. Perhaps my most notable contribution, though, is my extensive cleanup of Help:Editing, which now quickly gets to the point of how you actually write Wikicode. I find this very important, as we link to the page under every edit box and intend for newbies to understand it quickly. (Since these pages are transwikied, the actual edits were made on my Meta account, m:User:Rspeer.) rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A. I was in a drawn-out content dispute with User:Fahrenheit451 once, which I eventually brought to mediation. (I would have gotten mediation sooner, but I had to wait for the MedCom to exist.) It was resolved well there, and now F451 and I are on relatively good terms. I am now a believer that mediation works, and I will use it again if a content dispute requires it.
I have also been the target of personal attacks by the intermittently-blocked User:Mike Church. He causes me some low-level stress, but it's not much to worry about, and I recognize that it would be a misuse of my admin powers if I used them unilaterally against him. Generally, I brush off attacks quickly instead of escalating them, and I will continue to do so. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Question from feydey. You want to semi-protect an article, how do You proceed? Do You think You will be using this sysop privilege and when?
A. I would get consensus for it on the article's talk page. I would use it if I was working on a page that was clearly under constant attack by vandals, and it couldn't be handled with another tool. Like the policy page says, I would use it as a last resort. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Question from Hermione1980. How would you respond if another admin undid one of your admin actions without discussing it with you first (e.g. (un)blocking, (un)protecting, (un)deleting)?
A. Well, first I'd block them, and then I'd flame the hell out of them in the resulting RfAr. No, I'm kidding. I'd just bring it up on their talk page. Everyone can make errors of judgement, and there's half a chance that the error would be mine. I can't imagine the issue being so urgent that there isn't time to discuss it. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 00:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above 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/Rspeer&oldid=1138651986"