Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Spencer

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Spencer

Final: (90/1/0); ended 00:02,

Spencer (talk · contribs) - Hello. I’m User:Spencer, and I began contributing to the project on January 29, 2007 and have made nearly 13,000 edits since then. User:Pedro granted me rollback on January 25, 2008. I discovered Huggle in early June, and have been using that to fight vandalism much more efficiently and to a greater extent than before. I hope that if I am entrusted with admin tools, I will be able to help the community even more.

Thanks, Spencer^T♦C 00:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I would be working in primarily two areas if given admin tools. First, I would contribute to

AIV and blocking repeat vandals. Spencer^T♦C 00:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I have also uploaded 30 images to Commons after finding out about that project, both of my own work and that of the US government. Spencer^T♦C 00:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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’ve never found myself to be in major conflicts with other users. I’ve had minor disagreements with users at times, and we’ve worked out a decision or at least a mutual understanding on the talk page of the article, or on their user talk page. Probably one issue I remember was one between an IP on

First Kuwaiti Trading & Contracting. The IP was blanking certain sections and was placing in positive information about the company in the article. I re-added in the criticism (which was sourced), and helped the IP update the article with information from the links the IP put in. Spencer^T♦C 00:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Optional questions from  Asenine 

4. In his daily editing, a newbie user edits a prominent page, and his edit is reasonably trivial. It does not violate any policies, and it contains reliable sources. Unbeknownst to them, the edit they just made was against an overwhelming consensus on the talk page. Disgruntled editors then take action and replace the edited text with their own version which was decided with consensus. Their version, however, does not include any sources at all, and is unverifiable. What should be done to resolve the issue effectively, and which editor is doing the right thing according to policy? In a nutshell: Which is more important, verifiability or consensus?

A: It really differs depending on the situation. If the information is correct and reasonable, I would go to the talk page of the article and see if the consensus could be modified to add the new user’s sourced information, or if sources could be found for the text. However, if there are

WP:V takes more importance than consensus because it is a content standard. Spencer^T♦C 00:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

5. As an administrator, many inexperienced editors will come to you for advice. Some of them will be highly puzzled as to what is going on, or even angry because of something that has happened to them in the course of their time here. It is important to keep a cool head and handle the situation well, and also be knowledgeable in how to resolve the problem; so I ask - can you give us evidence that you have successfully aided annoyed users in the past?

A: I welcome many users an occasionally they ask me for advice. I haven't really dealt with any annoyed editors, per se, but just users who could use a small tip or two here and there. Some editors I probably helped out the most are

User:GlobetrotterUltima, and giving tips on helping fight vandalism to User:JS747 (see User talk:JS747). Actually now looking at my archives, I see that User talk:74.245.195.239 was pretty annoyed that I reverted one of their edits, so I wrote a response, and explained my point. Spencer^T♦C 23:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

6. Will your current activities continue if you are appointed with the mop and bucket? If not so, which will you drop/be less active in/be more active in/take up?

A: If I was to be appointed with the mop and bucket, I would stay with my current activities. One change, though. I would probably devote a little more time to ITN than I currently do so as to use my tools to add/modify items on the template. Otherwise, I see no reason to discontinue any of my current activities. Spencer^T♦C 23:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Question from

7. Do you agree with every Wikipedia policy? If not please give an example and tell why.

A: I don't really see any issues with Wikipedia policies as they are. One thing I'd like to note, though: I've heard people say they disagree with

WP:IAR, but I feel that it is in place so that users can follow "the spirit of the law," even if the action they wish to take seemingly disagrees with an existing policy, rule, or guideline. Spencer^T♦C 00:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• See Spencer's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Spencer: Spencer (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Spencer before commenting.

Discussion

• Any chance you could enable email? Not that I want to email you, just handy for the future. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - it is prefered although not mandatory. You can always creat a gmail account (other web based e-mail providers are available!) to avoid using a personal one. Pedro :  Chat  20:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Email now enabled. Spencer^T♦C 23:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's still not working. There's a checkbox at the bottom of the main preference screen.--chaser - t 04:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, didn't see that. Checkbox checked. Spencer^T♦C 15:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Based on seeing only positive things. Sam ^Blab 00:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support I've seen Spencer around, and I've seen good contributions. His work at ITN is great, and I'm sure giving him the tools would be of assistance there. Your edits seem to be balanced quite well, between mainspace work, vandal-fighting, among other things. Best of luck. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support. Based on a quick dive through your contribs, you seem to be a clueful and dedicated editor that would be well suited to the extra tools. Clean talk (communicative), clean block log (always a plus), and excellent, balanced contribs to both wikipedia space and mainspace. Wikipedia will be better off with you having the full set of tools at your fingertips. Good luck, and happy editing! Keeper ǀ 76 00:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 01:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support. You've been around for quite a while and I've only seen positive editing from you. Glad to see you at RfA! Good luck, Malinaccier (talk) 01:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support. bibliomaniac15 01:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support based on edits and personal interactions. Oppose based on this. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie » 02:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Well it's about time. ;) --chaser - t 03:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. Strong Support - After
    yesterday's discussion, I looked at your contributions in depth, only to ask myself: "why isn't this guy an admin yet??" - the struggling ITN secion will need an admin like you --Flewis^(talk) 05:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
11. Support I've seen good contributions at ITN --Stephen 06:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. Trust the editor who gave you rollback.... Pedro :  Chat  06:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support, most definitely. fish&karate 07:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
14. sure! abf /talk to me/ 08:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support, with pleasure. --Tone 08:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
16. Almost a model candidate. Good experience in admin areas with some good content as well. ITN work would be much appreciated here and Spencer will do a fine job at it. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 08:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
17. I believe Mr. Blofeld is expecting me -- my name is Bond, James...oh, wrong queue. But while I am here: Support for a highly worthy candidate.
    talk) 10:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
18. Support Polite, communicative, and wants to help in an area sorely in need of it? Yes, please! GlassCobra 11:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
19. Sure. You seem to have done well for yourself here, healthy contribs in mainspace and Wikipedia:. I see only reasons to support, none to oppose. I hope you'll be effective as an admin as you have been as a regular user. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support Vandal fighter,track is good and trust Pedro's judgement.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support Positive impression as a vandal fighter. No reason why not. —
    talk 12:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
22. Support Strong encyclopedia-building contributions. Deli nk (talk) 12:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
23. Strong Support Great user, has my complete trust. —αἰτίας •discussion• 13:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support per Juliancolton and Keeper. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
25. Finally! I knew this one was coming! Excellent user, has a fine grasp at
    (Testify!) 14:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
26. Support LittleMountain5 ^review! 14:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support Drama-free talk pages indicate either a tendency to avoid disagreement, or a history of healthy collaboration in the areas where the candidate works. Given the high degree of respect they've earned from the rest of the community, I'm gonna assume the latter.
    Townlake (talk) 15:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
28. Support I can see nothing that gives me even the slightest pause. Also, basically per Pedro. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 15:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support. The candidate has good experience in admin-related areas. AdjustShift (talk) 16:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support. – clueful user and nice to see an enthusiatic and coherent self-nomination. Caulde 18:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support, but go easy on the Huggle, eh?
    talk) 18:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
32. naerii 18:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support - looks like another worthy vandal-fighter. --
    T/C) 18:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
34. I was comtemplating nominating you, Spencer. Why don't you enable your email?! weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
35. Pile-on support...but I do agree...it's probably best to have that e-mail active... --Smashville^talk 20:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support No issues here. America69 (talk) 21:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support - No issues here.
    talk) 21:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
38. Support - Thought you were one :) →
    .И 22:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
39. Support - Good editor, good answerd, good admin potential. Good luck! ;-) gidonb (talk) 22:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support--LAAFan^sign _review 22:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support
    talk) 02:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
42. Yairs, Support per nomination. X MarX the Spot (talk) 03:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support Yep. Good all around guy and contributor, and can help out on ITN.
    T) 05:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
44. Aye No problems here, good luck Black Kite 11:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support I see no reason to oppose.
    talk • contribs) 12:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
46. Support: See my old neutral comment. — Realist² 13:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support - Spencer knows his way around Wikipedia and will not abuse the tools. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support per previous votes from editors that I hold in good standing and no glaring concerns that I have been able to find as of yet. --Winger84 (talk) 19:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support, no problems here.
    Tan | 39 21:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
50. Support - I thought he was already an admin.   jj137 (talk) 21:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
51. Strong Support - I seriously thought this guy's already an admin. Will be a definite net positive to the community. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 23:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support I like the answers and the candidate seems to be a civil editor.--Caspian blue (talk) 01:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support – I've seen him around doing some constructive work. By a glance at his contributions and what he's done to help the encyclopedia, he looks like he'll do just fine to me. –
    talk) 01:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
54. Support. Solid contributor with lots of clue and definite need for the tools. VG ☎ 01:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support based on constructive interaction at ITN over several months, where I was struck by Spencer's reasonableness and good judgment, even over issues we disagreed. An excellent admin candidate. - BanyanTree 01:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support I really do believe en.wiki needs more admins to take care of the ITN template.
    Nergaal (talk) 03:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
57. Support I looked through contributions and nothing strikes as negative, answers are okay. As others mention, you might "get out more"... (other areas?) Shenme (talk) 04:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support Sure. Your answers to the questions are good, even the very difficult ones. Based on the admin areas you plan to work on, I think you will be a fine admin. I know little of DYK or ITN, but I've seen you on Huggle many times. Your reversions, reports to AIV, and CSD taggings are always spot-on, and you have an even temperament, civility, and clue to boot. Good luck with the mop! J.delanoy^gabs_adds 06:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support. Definitely a great editor and vandal fighter.
    ^(Boo!) 06:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
60. Synergy 07:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support. Excellent contributions & good answers. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support good contributer
    talk) 19:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
63. Support, ample evidence to suggest that you know what you're doing in the areas you plan to frequent. Trustworthy and competent. ~ mazca ^t | c 22:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support In the spirit of Bond, this user is good as Goldfinger. Erik the
    Red 2 ~~~~ 22:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
65. Support Looks like an asset to Wikipedia and his contributions and actions speak for themselves. SoWhy 13:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support Looks very trustworthy, good contributions all around. All of your answers are also good and I think you could help a lot with the tools. --Banime (talk) 14:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
67. Support There's no reason to think he'll abuse the tools, the single oppose doesn't convince me (he never said he'd participate in AfD) and promoting him looks like it'll improve the encyclopedia. Vandal fighters are often opposed, but this user isn't only a vandal fighter, and we need admins for vandal fighting anyway. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 16:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
68. Support, per no legitimate reason to oppose. —
    Hello! 19:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
69. Support No reason not to. Good contributions and really knows the place and how it works. Jock Boy 21:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
70. Support II MusLiM HyBRiD II 01:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
71. Support. Just looking at the articles in your contributions list, I see that you've waded into some seriously contentious neighborhoods of Wiki-world, and don't seem to have angered anyone seriously. That alone won't make you a good admin, but it sure helps.
    Gladys J Cortez 02:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
72. Support. See no issues here. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
73. Support I've seen him around. Not in a creepy way or anything. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 06:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
74. Support User does a lot of stuff that even I find tedious and annoying. Seems to be in good standing, looks prolific in their edits, and seems on top of the game. Definitely a good choice. bigjake (talk) 07:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
75. Support Xenus (talk) 08:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
76. Support One of the easier ones in this batch - very apparently trustworthy. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
77. Support. Happily, a no-brainer. Good luck! Ford MF (talk) 19:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
78. Support. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 22:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
79. Support - Too often I have had this user beat me on anti-vandal work. Xclamation point 00:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
80. Support – superb editor. Will be an excellent administrator. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 04:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
81. Support Great editor and will make a great admin. --Patrick (talk) 14:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
82. Support - meets my standards. Bearian (talk) 21:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
83. Support - positive contributor and good demeanor in discussions. Cirt (talk) 21:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
84. Support per J.delanoy. Icewedge (talk) 02:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
85. Support Positive work, don't see any problems here. SpecialK(KoЯn flakes) 14:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
86. Support. Found it impressive how he keeps his cool. --Dschwen 14:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
87. Support - due to positive interactions. Gazimoff 17:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
88. Support  : As somebody says, " Nothing that concerns me ". -- Tinu Cherian - 18:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
89. Support A great asset to Wiki. Spinach Dip 22:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
90. Support I've worked with Spencer on a few occassions and he's been nothing but helpful. I don't see any reason he shouldn't have the tools. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 22:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Oppose -- Lack of XfD and AN/I participation. Very good, strong contributor who I'm sure is a positive asset to WP (more than I am, for sure) but I want to see more than vandal crushing and article space contribution. -- Logical Premise ^Ergo? 19:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   While you are of course completely entitled to your opinion, in my humble opinion simply nobody can be fully experienced in all areas. And actually Spencer does more than just “vandal crushing and article space contribution”: Great work at the

   Featured picture candidates, for example. —αἰτίας •discussion• 20:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   I don't ask them to be experienced in all areas. But the ones I value are the ones where I support editors running for admin with. With all due respect, their ability to produce good work at FPC doesn't show any ability to deal with what typically gets admins in trouble. -- Logical Premise ^Ergo? 21:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   The very fact that you said he is a net benefit makes me wonder why you decided to put your vote here. Additionally, where does Spencer say he will actively close XFD discussions, and since when is AN/I participation mandated? —Animum (talk) 00:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Excuse me? Animum, everyone has their own idea of what makes a good editor and a good admin. The two do not conflate, to suggest that good editor automatically equal good admins is a fallacy of staggering proportions. I said the editor is a positive asset, and I can't see any reason to promote. AN/I and XfD are the, in my opinion, most important aspects of adminship. What you're basically saying is that if my admin criteria don't match yours, I can't vote oppose. I've quite frankly had enough of admins who say they'll only do this or that, and have no experience with the tricky parts of adminship, and then when they end up getting mixed up in it (and they will) that inexperience leads to hueg dramaz. No thank you. I have to wonder, since this is going to pass anyway, why you feel the need to make a commment on my !vote? -- Logical Premise ^Ergo? 13:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Without reference to the instant case, I would observe that Logical's "net benefit" test is one that many of us employ (see, e.g.,

   User:Pedro/Net Positive) and that within such a framework one may quite reasonably say, as Logical well observes, that although it is clear that the net benefit to the project of a given user's being an editor is positive, it is not clear that the net benefit to the project of his being an admin should be (or, in fact, in the case of candidates to whom one has serious objections, that it is clear that that benefit should be negative). Joe 19:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   Also I don't mind being badgered mercilessly, but I do prefer it take place on my talk page as so not to clutter up the editor's RfA. :) -- Logical Premise ^Ergo? 21:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Neutral, leaning to support : Yes, help desk work and reference desk work. I think you will be useful. I'm going to let things pan out a little while, wait to see more answers to questions etc. This should move to a weak support if nothing crazy comes up. — Realist² 14:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC) What the hell, you seem good enough to me. — Realist² 13:01, 2 October 2008 (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.