Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rspeer

Rspeer

[{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rspeer|action=edit}} Vote here] (11/3/1) 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)

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)

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

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)
2. Support. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
3. Support. Cool signature. Trusted not to abuse tools. --TantalumTelluride 22:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
4. Support Looks like a solid, well-rounded user focused on building an encyclopedia. –Joke 22:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
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)
6. Support per Michael Snow. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
7. Support Naconkantari e|t||c|m 03:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
8. Support. Elf-friend 07:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
9. Support.. per michael snow. pschemp | talk 08:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
10. Support, looks good, and Michael Snow can be persuasive when he wants to be ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 09:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
11. Support, yes, definitely. Meets my standards. Polite and knowledgable. Proto||type 10:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

   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)

   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)

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)
3. Oppose Does not meet admin criteria Juppiter 01:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)
• 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)

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)

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)

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)