Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SpacemanSpiff

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

SpacemanSpiff

Final (115/9/0). Closed as successful by WJBscribe at 17:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

SpacemanSpiff (talk · contribs) – I first came across SpacemanSpiff in May at India related AFDs, when I saw this relatively new editor make informed comments at the discussions backed up by a search for sources, rather than just simple pro forma vote. Since those early days I have seen SpacemanSpiff expand his editing in various directions, always showing exemplary dedication, cluefullness and temperament. A few areas of his work that I am familiar with:

• Content creation:: The user already has 1 DYK, 1 good article, and two featured lists. Besides those, he has created >100 articles and has expanded, sourced, wikified dozens of others. In total he has made roughly 12,000 edits, of which >5,000 are in mainspace, and around 1,000 are deleted edits.
• Deletion discussions: SpacemanSpiff has nominated ~450 articles for speedy deletions (~425 were speedied; the last declined speedy was on June 6th!). He also is a regular at India related AFDs, as I mentioned above. A notable feature of his participation is the effort he takes to find sources to argue for keep/delete, and even rescue the articles by improving them. Fourteen such successful efforts are listed here; in addition to those he has also approached me and other users for help and second opinions, when he feels a subject may be worth preserving.
• Dealing with vandalism, POV, and socks: SpacemanSpiff has been a vigilant eye against not only vandalism, but also POV pushing on numerous nationalism/religion/history/caste related articles. To see how draining this experience can be, just browse through the talk page of Sivakasi riots of 1899 - the fact that Spaceman maintained his calm, explained policy, and investigated/addressed the concerns of the edit-warring IPs by sourcing and rewriting the article, all in the face of insistent IDIDNTHEARTHAT deserves a few barnstars, and exhibits a very desirable trait for an admin. Also, as checkuser YellowMonkey can probably attest, Spaceman has an uncanny nose for spotting socks and identifying sockmasters.

While I have outlined some of the areas Spaceman has worked in, the more impressive part is how he engages in that work. SpacemanSpiff is an excellent collaborator and perhaps the best way to appreciate this is to read through this FLC nomination and this GA review to see how these (sometimes rancorous) review processes can be undertaken with a spirit of mutual respect and even bonhomie. A perusal of his talk page interactions will provide many such examples of collaborative spirit, communication skills, and a friendly but firm temperament. Again, I think, such interpersonal skills will serve Spaceman well if he is successful at this RFA.

Finally, to address the issue of whether he has use for the admin buttons: yes he certainly does! Please get him off my back and give him his own bit. :-) Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 00:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Co-nomination by RegentsPark Abecedare has perfectly expressed the reasons why SpacemanSpiff should be given the tools. He detects copyright violations, sniffs out socks, and keeps track of various pov warriors and somehow keeps all this in his head for quick retrieval (he is practically a database for these things). He works carefully and thoughtfully on creating content, actively seeking out peer reviews and following up criticism with good grace and thoughtful rewrites. As Abecedare attests, he can make immediate productive use of the tools and, if made an admin, won't have to waste time explaining things to brain dead admins! --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Accept, with thanks. -SpacemanSpiff 17:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

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've been active in the PROD and AfD areas for a while, so that might be a decent starting point (I can see the questions coming, so maybe I should add that I don't have any intention of closing contentious AfDs right away! *joke*). Of late, I've also been active in battling POV on India-related articles and I'd definitely help out with admin tools in that area. I obviously intend not to use tools on any of these articles if I have contributed any content, except in cases of vandalism (doen't include content disputes and POV pushing), but there are many editors playing in this space who could do with some assistance, without having to go seek it on one of the boards every time. I'm also active on pages needing translation, and can take care of some Indian language articles easily. I would potentially help out at AIV and possibly AN3, but I have no interest in being active on ANI, UAA, Image deletions etc.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I started off as an "at large" editor and after a while someone alerted me to the need for countering systemic bias. Since then I've been focused on creating articles (mostly stubs) related to women's cricket and Indian literature in English. I've created over 80% of the articles in Category:Indian women cricketers, including two Featured Lists. I've also created a good number of articles on Indian English books and a few other articles in the same vein; while not exactly great articles, I think these have helped in countering systemic bias. My personal favorite is R. K. Narayan, starting with "a mostly copyvio version", I improved it to GA standards; during the review process, I also managed to understand (at least some of) the differences between blogging and article writing! (Note: The DYK that Abecedare mentions above was just "bragging rights", courtesy of Harrias, as I created the article.)

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: As I'm active in the hotbed of POV problems in Indian articles -- caste, religion and language, it's difficult not to get involved in conflicts. My edit summaries are generally clear enough to signal the reasoning behind my actions. If I have to revert/undo more than once, I generally add a talk page message (exceptions are when I'm reverting a sock etc). If it goes beyond that stage, I contact (almost always) an independent editor (or post on WT:INB) to take a look. I might get irritated occasionally, but if I'm still involved in the dispute I do not let that affect my actions. On probably a couple of occasions, I've been a little careless/hasty with my comments after letting someone else address the situation (not attacks or abuse, and nothing to merit a WP:NPA warning or civility warning); in such cases I do apologize and defuse the situation (this is the incident I remember; on looking at the editor's talk page today, I find that he's been blocked as the sockmaster of one of the disruptive editors I referred to in my post). I don't see much changing in the future, except maybe being more successful at avoiding any careless comments.

Questions from ArcAngel

4. When should cool down blocks be used and why?

A: Atama's answer from their RfA captures my opinion on this pretty well and I do not want to plagiarize! Blocking an editor because they are angry or agitated is unnecessary and will most likely have the exact opposite effect, it will make matters worse when the block expires. However, if the editor continues to indulge in other activities like edit-warring, personal attacks etc, a preventative block can be issued. Although this may appear to be a cool down scenario, it really is to prevent disruption.

5. Do you feel blocking a user who has vandalized your userpage is a conflict of interest? Why or why not?

A: From a policy standpoint I would say that if the user has vandalized more than just my userpage (3 of 4 violations is in areas outside of my userspace) then there clearly isn't a conflict of interest. If most/all of the vandalism is in my userspace, there could be a potential conflict of interest based on prior interactions etc. However, from a practical standpoint, I would prefer that someone else deal with any kind of blocking related to my userspace, as this would negate any perceptions of COI.

6. What are your thoughts on CAT:AOR and will you add yourself to it? Why or why not?

A: I think it's a good idea in principle, but it appears to be too broad a category with multiple definitions of what recall is (My first opinion, I haven't seen the cat before). I went through a random few criteria/process links and found Bigtimepeace's criteria and process to be quite practical. I would add myself to the category and use Bigtimepeace's policy with the modification that I'd let someone else interpret consensus. As for my thoughts, I have a need for certain tools (page protection, blocking) and if the RfA were to succeed, the community entrusts me with other tools including the delete button, permission assignments etc. If I misuse or abuse either set of tools it is only correct that the community withdraws those tools from me.

Question from Triplestop

7. How would you close the following AfDs? Please answer even if you voted or intend to vote.

1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of post-Ellen American television episodes with LGBT themes
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of male performers in gay porn films (5th nomination)
3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mun Charn Wong

A: I'll answer based on the revisions above, and not looking at the latest.

1. I would not close the post-Ellen list. Looking at the discussion, I'm obviously missing some context as I really don't understand the significance of some discussion points. However, both keep and delete side participants seem to perfectly understand each other. There are many admins equipped to handle this, and if I were an admin, I would not be one of them. This is a situation I'd prefer to step back from and not make a mess of things, letting someone else handle it.

2. I would close this as a keep. The arguments on the keep side outweigh the concerns expressed by the delete side in my opinion; lists and categories can exist together and lists provide a navigational advantage, BLP concerns can be addressed through editing and trimming the list to sourced entries only. I would definitely add a closing note urging participants to watchlist the list and ensure that unsourced entries are removed and do not creep back in.

3. This one is a tricky decision, reading through the AfD I'm torn between keep and no consensus. I think the keep side has weighed in that obituaries by themselves don't fall under the NOTMEMORIAL category and that an article in a statewide business publication shows some notability. In addition there are the other bits and pieces of trivial and not highly significant coverage. However, there is a concern from the delete side that hasn't been addressed completely -- what has he done to achieve notable status? The arguments based on the top salesman award is perhaps not the strongest, but it's as good as that of a character in a book or TV series. On weighing these issues, I lean toward closing it as a keep.

I'd also like to add that I don't intend to close any contentious AfDs until I develop some experience in that area.

Additional optional questions from Coffee

8. If you were to close an AFD, on a BLP, (such as this), where there is no easily determined consensus how would you close it?

A. Heh, I don't think I've had such a question asked at an interview or through my many years of education! I think the argument for the significance of the CJR article is strong, but not so strong for the other sources, resulting in a consensus of borderline notability, but unclear on which side. Therefore a no consensus default to delete appears to be the best outcome. I'll add that, if I had participated in the AfD, I probably would have !voted keep, but that's not my reading of the consensus in this discussion.

9. What is your opinion on the current BLP policy, and what work have you done (if any) with BLPs?

A. I think the current policy is reasonable, I don't look at it everyday but refer it once in a while. I think I've written about 80+ stub BLPs (mostly women cricketers) and have taken care to ensure that all of them pass the WP:Athlete/WP:CRIN criteria, the few that are artistes, pass WP:Creative. I've made sure that every statement in the articles is referenced to reliable sources. A few that I created at the start of my wikicareer didn't have inline citations, but I think I went back and fixed them all. With these articles, there's basically no activity, so much so that when I had an edit conflict on one of them, I was really excited! Given that, I haven't had any problems in ensuring that these articles stay within our BLP guidelines. But in my other play pen -- handling the POV problems, you often see people being categorized into caste articles with no references, and then someone else categorizes them differently and so on. A classic example is Venkatraman Ramakrishnan where the subject's ethnicity was in constant flux. I only noticed this after the subject actually deleted that text with the edit summary "I'm the subject and I don't self identify this way" or something to the effect. These are some issues I try to address regularly (including monitoring coatracks/POV forks etc). I haven't actively sought out BLPs, but wherever they overlap my editing interests, I work on them.

Question from Hullaballoo Wolfowitz

10. In question 8, you indicated that in closing AFD discussions on BLPs "where there is no easily determined consensus," your practice would be "default to delete." This is, of course, a controversial matter with substantial support and opposition. But there has not been sufficient support from the community to implement this proposal. Did you really intend to say that you intended to use administrative authority in a way that contradicts the applicable policy? When (more generally) do you believe administrators should use their authority to act contrary to policies? (On the specific BLP question, it may helpful to review the Wendy Babcock DRV here [1] and the deletion policy discussion here [2], although those discussions are rather long.)

A. (Repeating parts of my response to SoWhy, below.) If I were to close a "no consensus" BLP, I would default it to a delete, based on my interpretation of the "presumption of privacy" aspect. But I understand that this view does not have the majority support in the community. I do not intend to thrust my views on the community, but at the same time, I will not do something I disagree with, as in, I will not close this as a no consensus -- default to keep. The only logical and sensible thing for me to do in such cases, is to stay away. On the other bit of the question, I do not think there is any "administrative authority", only an "administrative ability" to interpret policy and execute on community consensus. In this particular case, my interpretation of policy is at odds with community consensus, and therefore I do not have the ability to act. On this particular issue, I do have a strong opinion on the interpretation, but the topic itself is not something that I have a significant interest in, so it's just as easy for me to not get involved in the future as I have avoided it in the past/present (no article creation or AfD participation in borderline BLPs). As far as using IAR contrary to policy, something like Controversies of Paris Hilton, however well sourced, is a candidate, but in my editing, I haven't come across much like that (just one article), so I'm really not sure if there are other kinds of cases. (Addendum: The "step back from it" approach applies only to "no consensus"; if I were to become an admin, I'm likely not going to spend much time closing things like 7.2 and 7.3, those aren't cases I will actively disengage myself from.)

Questions from -Pickbothmanlol-

11. What is your opinion on the current issue regarding blatant advertising being redirected at not only the mainspace but as well as by draft?

A. If there's anything on article space, it should be dealt with by removing the advert portions and/or rewording, or if it's just an advert, there's the G11 category. On user space, we of course need to give a bit of leeway if it's an article in progress, but not necessarily for something that's just sitting out there; it's very possible that new users don't always know what qualifies as advertising vs encyclopaedic content, so a note alerting them can often do the trick for user space drafts etc. I really don't check for advertising and links outside of article space and don't intend to going forward either.

General comments

• Links for SpacemanSpiff: SpacemanSpiff (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for SpacemanSpiff can be found here.

---

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

Discussion

Support

1. Looks excellent. No alarms showing here GedUK  17:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
2. Based on prior experience with him and the fact that we need more admins around here with off-planet experience. The Death Ray Zorcher could probably use a less inelegant name though. John Carter (talk) 18:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
3. Support: Similarly, based on experience with Spaceman Spiff he looks like a prime candidate for adminship. Harrias (talk) 18:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
4. He is a great asset to Wikiproject India. As the nominators mention, his work in fighting POV pushers in caste and language articles is tremendous. It is a thankless job - the caste POV ers are legion,relentless, use socks and IPs to edit war and are generally quick to take offense(i wont be surprised if some turned up in the oppose column). His work in AFD is also thorough and thoughtful - he takes extra care to assess the article before making his recommendation. And he has helped me out immediately when i asked for help. To fight the Zorg better, spaceman spiff should be given admin privileges.--Sodabottle (talk) 18:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
5. Strong Support SpacemanSpiff will make a great admin. Spiff's willingness to wade into some very contentious areas (POV pushing, AfD, caste related articles, etc.), always showing civility and with very good results, has been impressive. Upgrade his Death Ray Zorcher and give him the mop. Priyanath ^talk 19:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
6. Support per nom and excellent history.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 19:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
7. Looks not bad. The only drawbacks might be 6,5 months of wiki-experience (the more — the better, imho) and lack of crosswiki activity (well, ditto). — Qweedsa (talk) 19:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
8. Support - Quality editor, seems like a good admin candidate. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
9. Always impressed with his judgment. - Dank (push to talk) 19:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
10. Absolutely! very impressive work, excellent. A8UDI 19:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
11. Support No concerns, yet. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
12. Support Have had nothing by excellent interactions with this editor and admire his knowledge and willingness to work against systemic bias. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
13. Support For someone with whom I have very little common editing ground, I have encountered Spiff's sig and opinions quite a bit. I find the opinions to be sound, civil, and showing a good level of WP:CLUE. Even this comment about my first GAN didn't bother me. A net positive to the project. No concerns about granting the bit. Plus, there is that great username. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 20:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC) reconsidering due to "default to delete" answer against policy and consensus to question 8 Satisified with further explanation that Spiff will abide by policy and consensus on BLP deletions. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 13:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
14. Strong support YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 21:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
15. Support per answers to my questions, candidate seems knowledgeable in policy and so I can find no fault in giving them the mop. ArcAngel (talk) 21:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
16. Strong support - Excellent work fighting POV pushers trolling around Indian articles. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 21:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
17. Support a most suitable nominee. Crafty (talk) 21:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
18. Support - My interactions with Spiff have always been positive. A fantastic editor that will make a great admin. -- Atama頭 21:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
19. Support I don't have any concerns that would make me oppose. Everything else seems to be good. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 22:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
20. Support Consistently impressive. @Kate (talk) 22:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
21. Support Clearly has the history behind them that the community can give firm trust in them.--TParis00ap (talk) 23:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
22. Support He discusses issues at AfD and with other editors about articles. I'd like to see you confine article discussions to article talk pages not raising issues at user talk pages, and spend less time discussing other users (focus: articles). But this is an area on wikipedia, Indian subcontinent articles, where it would be useful to have a good administrator. In addition SpacemanSpiff has a tendency to pay regard to input from others. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 23:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
23. Support - This user has a great history. December21st2012Freak (talk) 00:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
24. will make a good one. --CarTick 01:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
25. Support As someone said at my RFA, "I thought you already were one!" You seem to be quite the qualified editor, obviously knowledgeable about the ways of things here, and you're not at all likely to block Jimbo and delete the Main Page. Nyttend (talk) 01:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
26. Support. Woohoo! Spiffy for admin! SpacemanSpiff can handle the responsibility and I believe they will use the tools and the unlimited power wisely. The Indian section needs good administrators; issues quickly get contentious and editors even more quickly get overheated--but not Spiffy. As an honorary Tamil, I may be biased, but I have worked with Spiff, know them to be dedicated to the project, and have only praise to offer. Drmies (talk) 01:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
27. Support: I see his contributions a lot and I think that he does a lot of good work. Joe Chill (talk) 02:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
28. Support Good choice. Warrah (talk) 02:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
29. Support Wikireader41 (talk) 02:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
30. Always seems reasonable and mature. ceranthor 02:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
31. Strongest Possible Support (Treat this as co-nom): Worked with him on several occasions associated with WikiProject India. Very mature and helpful. All the qualities for an admin. Ha, the other co-nominators have said it all. All the best ! -- Tinu Cherian - 03:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
32. Support Excellent user. Triplestop x3 03:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
33. Support The fact that he's only 7 month here and already a strong nominee is impressive. I like meteors and I wish him success as an admin.--Gilisa (talk) 06:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
34. SupportI've seen Spaceman Revert vandalism and he is really good at it--NotedGrant Talk 06:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
35. Support - Good Luck! Smithers (Talk) 07:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
36. Strong support - Tinucherian and Aaroncrick said everything I wanted to say! Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
37. I see nothing wrong with this user, go for it! –BuickCenturyDriver 07:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
38. worth a trial with the tools. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
39. Support Per Gilisa. Also, near flawless edit summary usage ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 07:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
40. Strong support - Tremendously valuable editor. This editor with the tools would be a great asset. Shadowjams (talk) 08:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

    Let me add on, Spiff's got 800 patrols for 12,000 edits, putting him at around 6%, which is very respectable. Shadowjams (talk) 10:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

41. Support So what if Spiff's only been here 7 months? Bradjamesbrown (talk) 08:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

    That was my reaction too Shadowjams (talk) 10:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

42. Support Good job BejinhanTalk 09:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
43. Support Sole Soul (talk) 09:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
44. Support Gizza^{Discuss ©} 10:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
45. Support, excellent candidate from what I can see. --Taelus (talk) 12:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
46. Support - Great answers to my questions, I trust you with the tools. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 13:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
47. Support: looks like the project will benefit from the user having the tools. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 13:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
48. Strong support The answers to all the questions are quite lovely... SpacemanSpiff is undoubtedly trustworthy. The thing that should not be 13:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
49. Strong support I have seen little of SpacemanSpiff's edits but what I have seen till now impresses me. Has a great deal of maturity and commitment to NPOV-The Enforcer_{Office of the secret service} 14:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
50. Support Secret ^account 16:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
51. Strong support - as I continue to read, I'm becoming more convinced that this is a fantastic candidate, per many of the above who have stated it well. Thank you for striving to uphold NPOV. Your answers to the BLP questions (and comments, such as in the Neutral section) are thoughtful and intuitive. JamieS93 17:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
52. Support If opposed by an editor with an unending appetite for deletionism, hypocrisy, gaming the system and acting without good faith, this request can only be viewed as a good thing. Magpie1892 ^account 18.48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
53. Support Definitely. I've seen the good work he has done and I have no reason to think he will not be a good admin. His username is pretty awesome too. :D what else do we need to say? ;) Thingg^⊕⊗ 19:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
54. Strong Support SpacemanSpiff is a top-notch candidate for adminship. I've seen him before at AfD, where his reasoning is solid and demonstrates his excellent comprehension of policy. That's further demonstrated by his answers to the questions above. I'm also impressed by Spiff's article work, including his GA and two FLs (after only seven months?!), his work at WP:PNT, and his dedication to countering systemic bias, POV-pushers, and sock-puppeteers. An excellent, drama-free editor like Spiff deserves a major pat on the back for his hard work, and can certainly be trusted with the mop. From one Calvin and Hobbes fan to another, good luck, Spiff! A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
55. Support A deserving candidate. Will make an excellent administrator.Shyamsunder (talk) 21:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
56. Support. Has a good head on his/her shoulders. Kafka Liz (talk) 22:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
57. Support. If business was as good as my aim, I'd be on Easy Street. Tan | 39 01:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
58. Strong candidate. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
59. Support I've noticed his work and been quite impressed. Would make an excellent admin, I believe. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
60. Support. Of course. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
61. Support. Great editor.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
62. Samir 07:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
63. Support Per the reply to SoWhy and the answer to question 10. As long as someone is not going to use their admin tools to go against consensus/policy, then a difference of opinion is not grounds for me to not support an otherwise good candidate. Davewild (talk) 08:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
64. Support Great and Kind editor....  arun  talk  17:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
65. Support per Q8 and 10. Aditya Ex Machina 17:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
66. NW (Talk) 19:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
67. Support Per Davewild (who wrote what I wanted to write, just much simpler and more elegant). Regards SoWhy 20:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
68. Support A little iffy on the AfD part, but excellent in almost everything else.  fetchcomms☛ 21:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
69. Support Seems okay to me. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
70. Support per Q8. Wizardman 00:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
71. Support This is the first time I have ever knowingly supported a candidate who hold the view that BLP should default to delete. I do so because of his extremely sensible and realistic approach to dealing with areas of policy where he disagrees. (for example, I think some parts of the policy on non-free content images are over-restrictive. I therefore not only avoid admin action where that is the issue, but generally avoid the discussions as well.) I think there are many admins who do similarly with some policies or guidelines, and it is immensely better than an admin who acts based of their view of what it ought to be. Additionally, the response to 7.1 seemed the most sensible thing said anywhere with respect to that entire AfD. We do not have to think alike, but the final actions should be consistent. And in particular, I think his comment on 7.1 is the most sensible thing said anywhere about that particular AfD. DGG ( talk ) 00:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
72. Support. Very sensible editor. I've only had good experiences of SpacemanSpiff. I think the comments about BLP & AfD aren't quite right, but I don't want to make this candidate a casualty of the BLP Wars. Fences&Windows 02:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
73. Support - Per many of the above; great editor. Airplaneman ^talk 06:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
74. Clearly a Support — Lost^(talk) 11:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
75. Support switching from oppose per DGG's reasoned argument at #71 --Pontificalibus (talk) 11:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
76. Support Based on answers to questions. — æk^Talk 12:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
77. Mainly per the answer to Question 8, and not necesarially because I agree with that view either. Asking these sorts of questions to candidates is somewhat unfair, because it gives them a no-win situation. Some will disagree with the default to keep reasoning, others would disagree with default to delete reasoning, and there are those that would oppose you for fence sitting. Your explanation behind your answer explained your point of view well enough in my opinion, and for this reason I support you. Best of luck, Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 13:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
78. Support I have seen this editor around, and am happy with his answers (I wasn't too sure, until I saw his response to SoWhy - if an admin disagrees with a particular aspect of a policy, but declares that they would not get involved in those decisions, I think that is a wise choice to make). Good luck! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
79. Support Good answerers specifically BLP related, I trust this editor. RP459 (talk) 18:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
80. Support Seems like a good candidate. Good luck with the mop! Laurinavicius (talk) 20:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
81. Support Andrea105 (talk) 20:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
82. Support per Q4.Doc Quintana (talk) 20:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
83. Yup --Scott Mac (Doc) 20:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

    Strong Support -- I see many great things from this user and many more when he gets the prize. -Pickbothmanlol- 20:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

    This user is currently blocked (probably indefinitely), so I feel that I should indent his !vote. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 23:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

84. Weakish Support - Sorry, I just couldn't put it to Support. While I applaud your contributions on the R. K. Narayan page, I don't believe the article needed a total of 248 edits. I know it is a small nitpickish comment, but I just thought I'd point it out. --Addihockey10^{(review me!)} 22:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
85. Support of course! — JoJo • Talk • 02:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
86. Enthusiastic Support I keep seeing him around at AFD and other places, he will be great. Any concerns I might have had about defaulting to delete on BLPs are handled by his reply down in the neutral section. Ray^Talk 02:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
87. Support - I have been thoroughly impressed with SpacemanSpiff's work on Wikipedia. In my experience, he makes careful and meticulous edits and is eager to learn. He is thoughtful and is never afraid to ask questions if he is unsure how to handle a situation. I strongly disagree with his position of BLPs defaulting to delete, but as long as he is willing to respect community consensus on the matter it is not an issue for me. I am sure Spaceman will make a fine admin. I was happy to co-nominate, but there was no need due to the excellent nomination statement already made by Abecedare. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
88. Weak support On reflection, I realize that my objections are primarily about positions he would take in AfDs, and not on how he would close them. Looking at what he would do as an administrator, I largely agree with his position and would caution not to let your own opinions about notability factor too heavily into how you would judge consensus on an AfD. As to closing controversial AfDs... my advice is just don't do it. The grief isn't worth it. AniMate 03:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
89. Weak support Don't like answer to Q8, but no problems otherwise. Razorflame 08:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
90. Support, no problems here, and I enjoy the Calvin & Hobbes reference. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC).
91. Support   pablo_hablo. 17:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
92. Weak Support - meets my standards in many ways: lots of edits including sufficient WP edits, all those Userboxen, AfD work, and Barnstars. Minuses include only 7 months' experience and answer to question 7. As long as SpacemanSpiff stays away from things he doesn't know, he can wield the mop. Bearian (talk) 20:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
93. Support Editor's contributions show a consistent pattern of proper conduct while adding to the quality of the project. Answers to questions are all satisfactory, and I see no reason not to trust this user with admin tools. Mrathel (talk) 21:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
94. Support Strong commitment and current contributions. The answers to questions indicate a strong understanding of policy and intelligence in decision-making. Fully trusted. --Mpdelbuono (talk) 21:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
95. Support as net positive: good answers to questions, and generally awesome username. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
96. Support Good contributions, excellent answers and all-round sound judgment. Will do just fine. Plutonium27 (talk) 02:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
97. Strong Support: An ideal candidate! It's It is good two to sea see editors who no know what they are speaking of of what they speak. - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
98.  Support Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, SpacemanSpiff. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 04:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
99. Support. Fully qualified candidate, no issues or concerns. The opposers' view that the candidate should be denied adminship because of disagreement on an isolated, contentious issue of deletion relating to deletion policy, especially given the candidate's statement that he does not intend to focus on this area, is completely unpersuasive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
100. Support. Per Drmies. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 17:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
101. Support The above 100 support comments are very persuasive. The nominators of this candidate should be commended for their evident wisdom and judgment. Abecedare (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
102. Support Answered questions well and has great contributions. Dogposter 22:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
103. Support - net benefit to Wikipedia here. Some questionable AfD responses, but nothing that troubles me to the point of opposing. Cocytus [»talk«] 00:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
104. Support Generally applies policy well, good contributor, gets along well with other editors, shows a desire for peace while resolving conflicts. Deadly combination - all he needs now is the mop :-) Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 15:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
105. Strong Support Excellent user and track.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
106. Support I see no problems here. Santa Claus of the Future (talk) 20:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
107. Support. Answer to Q8 doesn't seem quite right, but I'll let it slide. Everything else seems good enough. And as a side note, this is the 150th time I've supported an RFA. Useight (talk) 02:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
108. Support No problems here, and I trust him to be intelligent if/when he closes BLP AfDs. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
109. Strong support More qualified than the overwhelming majority of existing administrators. I only hope that this editor retains a focus on content creation and improvement and treats the admin work as the boring drudgery that it is. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 04:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
110. Support. I see no problems. Valley2city^‽ 04:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
111. Support. That I may disagree with some of the answers is no reason to oppose. Tim Song (talk) 04:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
112. Strongest possible Support - No reason to oppose. Besides, you look clean enoug. Deo Volente! 7107Lecker ^{Tischgespräch, außerdem...} 04:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
113. Support: Had several interactions and although Q8 may be a little off, overall, no reason to oppose. PookeyMaster (talk) 05:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
114. Support logs look good, deleted content seems OK, done patrols, though I am a little disappointed that our candidate only uploaded a first picture less than a month ago, on commons. But by doing this becomes more suitable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
115. Support. Candidate with solid experience. Aiken ♫ 13:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose You have only been here for 7 months, which is not is enough to know all necessary knowledge and policies.--Caspian blue 03:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

   While this is a reasonable reason to oppose, I think it worth pointing out that it is useful to see if (1) the editor has enough knowledge about policies in some areas and (2) whether the editor is likely to act in areas where their knowledge is limited. I think that SpacemanSpiff knows enough about the areas they plan to use the buttons initially and has demonstrated enough judgement while on wikipedia as evidence that he/she's unlikely to use the buttons when unsure. Just a thought. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 03:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

   We've also had editors with less monthly experience get the tools. In a way, having less experience is a good thing because they are less involved with the policies and traditions, thus bringing different ideas to the project. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

   I respectfully disagree. The candidate seems to understand policy, regardless of their time frame being here. Doc Quintana (talk) 20:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

2. Oppose per answer to question 8, where candidate says he will not follow established policy in closing AFDs. Also note that this answer is not really consistent with answer to 7.2, where an AFD on an article whose content is entirely BLP material and where determining consensus is not easy would be closed as a keep. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC) Followup - while the candidate's response to q10 relieves some of my concern about the concerns I expressed, but at the same time raises other significant issues. When he says that he will only use admin authority/ability to act when he agrees with the policy/practice involved, I find that disturbing. Admins are supposed to act on behalf of the community, not to act only when they agree with the community. While there's enough "breathing room" for admins who might strongly object to particular actions enforcing policy to step away, "I just disagree with community opinion" shouldn't be good enough. Admins should determine community consensus and act on it - not determine community consensus, then decide whether the community was right. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

   I agree with the inconsistancy with 7.2 and 8, but isn't it correct to default to delete with no consensus on a BLP? So it seems the answer to 7.2 is the against policy one? --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 18:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

   Check out this discussion [3], where even a much milder variation of "default to delete" fails. This should probably go to the talk page. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

   Oppose User agrees with current BLP policy but intends to go against it by deleting BLPs where there is no consensus to do so. Perhaps their answer to question 8 is just what they think the asker wants to hear? I don't see any other reason for their illogical position. --Pontificalibus (talk) 16:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC) Changing to support --Pontificalibus (talk) 11:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

   I think in this case, which is one which a lot of people disagreed about, the question was less about BLP than RS's. Blogs and wikinews, the primary sources used, both fail as RS's. In that particular case, BLP or not, I think that the policy-based decision would have been to delete. The assertion of notability from an nonreliable source is, effectively, no assertion of notability. Just an opinion, anyway, but, if it were me, I think I might have done the same thing. And I have a distinct feeling that, one way or another, even long-term admins might go about 50-50 on this one. John Carter (talk) 23:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

3. Oppose due to answer to question 8, 7.2 and a bit of a concern about total experience. Hobit (talk) 23:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
4. Oppose per Q8. No consensus, default to delete? No, thanks. Nsk92 (talk) 15:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

   On contentious and marginally notable BLPs? Seems to be the new standard. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

   Just for the record, it is not the standard now, and it never was, although I expect proposals for it to continue indefinitely. DGG ( talk ) 00:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

   Just look at the support this guy is getting. You can't claim that doesn't show where the consensus is. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 21:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

   the consensus is that he will be a conscientious administrator. It's not a referendum on his personal view of what he would change about Wikipedia policy--unless one thinks it would affect his edits. If I thought they would I would surely oppose, just as I would oppose a candidate who wanted to change established policy in the direction also wanted, and intended to act as if it were accepted policy when it is not yet so. I support honest careful knowledgeable people of whatever opinion, if they act as they ought to. DGG ( talk ) 03:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

5. Oppose per Q8.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
6. Oppose BLP default-to-delete arguments are primarily about people who are non-public figures--that is, they aren't notable and don't show any evidence of wanting to become notable. Shankbone doesn't fit in that category by a long shot. Jclemens (talk) 07:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
7. Weak oppose Spaceman is doing quality work but Q8 is a source of concern, even in the face of DGG's comments. Power.corrupts (talk) 10:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
8. Regretful oppose Candidate seems generally good, but the answer to Q8 is troubling. We don't need more sysops circumventing policy because they feel that something should be deleted. The Wordsmith^Communicate 15:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

   The candidate has specifically stated that they will not circumvent policy even where they might disagree with it. There will always be some disagreement on whether a particular policy or guideline is right or wrong, what we need is admins who state that they will uphold policy and whose history shows that they are likely to keep their word. The candidate seems to well satisfy both those criteria. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 17:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

9. Oppose The numbers are clear which way this RFA is headed. This oppose is mainly to register my concern with Q8. Your follow up comments do mitigate my concern to a degree. However due to the fact that there's no process to hold candidates to RFA promises, the concern still remains a bit.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral(switch to weak support) He definitely shows some clue by wanting to stay away from WP:AN/I. I don't like his answers too much at 7.2, 7.3, and 8, and he plans to work with AfDs, which makes me lean towards oppose. I like his answer to question 9, but any positives from it is destroyed by his 7.2 answer, cause that article is demonstrably a BLP nightmare. His record on speedy deletions is good and his article work is excellent. Factor in the awesome user name, and I'm fairly torn. Firmly neutral, with a slight lean towards oppose for now. I may add a question with some more tricky AfDs to see how he answers, and will definitely keep an eye on this and see if I'm swayed either way. AniMate 05:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Neutral (switch to support) The answer to question 8 concerns me greatly since we just had a lengthy discussion about that and there was no consensus for such a course of action. I know that BLP is a hot topic and very important but an admin closing an AFD is not asked to close decide on their their personal opinion but on consensus and policy and if the discussion results in "no consensus", then it means "no consensus to change anything" and not "delete". One can try and change policy and one can disagree with policy but I expect an admin to act based on policy even if they disagree with it. And on this matter policy is clear. Protecting BLPs is a fine goal, no doubt about it, but one's personal interpretation of the BLP policy should not override the community's decision how to handle a certain situation. Regards SoWhy 15:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

This is in response to SoWhy and AniMate; I am in no way trying to sway your opinion, but I believe an explanation is in order. The question was "How would you close", not "Would you close". In this case, my reasoning is based on my understanding of the presumption of privacy aspect of our BLP policy. However, I also understand that my interpretation is not general consensus here. In such cases I do not take any action. If the question was would you close this -- the answer is no. There are many areas around here, where my opinion/interpretation of policy has not coincided with the general consensus. In all these instances, I have just not taken any action on what I think should be done. That aside, if you take a look at my AfD participation over the past few months, you will notice that I participate only in areas where my interpretation coincides with general consensus and a 90-95% overlap with the final outcome, I can only think of two instance where my opinion was not taken into account, one a really inelegant opinion and another a genuine difference of interpretation in notability aspects. That aside, I also have no interest in taking on the most difficult tasks immediately, there are many easy things to do around here, and it's simply better to do those and free up the time of those who can take up other tasks. I hope I've explained myself. -SpacemanSpiff 15:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's ask this way: Hypothetically, if you closed an BLP AFD as "no consensus", would you ever delete the article? Regards SoWhy 16:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer to close a "no consensus" BLP as a default to delete based on my interpretation of the "presumption in favor of privacy" aspect. However, I am well aware that the majority of the community (and as additionally pointed out by you with the above link) does not share my interpretation. Therefore, the only sensible thing for me to do is not to involve myself in such closes. I can not in good conscience do something I disagree with, but there is also no reason for me to thrust my views on others (possibly a majority of the community) who disagree with me. In such a case, the only option is to let someone else do it. Quite honestly, this is not an important enough part of my editing interests to spend my time trying to change the consensus on this front, so it's a topic I will just avoid. I will not misuse the tools, but at the same time, I will not use them in a manner I disagree with. I understand that this may not be what people expect of someone with access to the tools, but this is how I expect I will work.

That said, my views could change, I initially PRODded a couple of high school articles and was told that high schools were considered notable always. I disagreed with it and stopped checking for school articles for a while and then I saw DGG's explanation of the rationale at an AfD. That changed my opinion and I've since been doing a lot of rescue work on school articles. I don't think I answered your question, but this is how I would act. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 22:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Concerned as per opposes 2 and 3 but awaiting answer to question 10 and SoWhy's question above before deciding whether I must oppose. Davewild (talk) 18:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC) Switching to support Davewild (talk) 08:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

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.