Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pedant

Pedant

Vote here (19/7/2) ending 04:24, 15 January 2005 (UTC)

I thought I could avoid adminship as it seemed at first that I could do just about anything I really needed to without any special powers... I feel differently now and would like to be considered. (and would someone please delete Real internets right away?) I put a lot into the wikipedia and her sister projects and think I've added value. I'm active enough that anyone who votes here should already have formed some opinion on my suitability, I think, but I'll gladly do some bragging if it's needed, just ask. Pedant 04:24, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)

Support

1. Strongly support. Pedant is a solid, reliable, trustworthy user. →Raul654 05:12, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
2. --Lst27 (talk) 20:43, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
3. Raul's support is enough for me. Neutrality^talk 22:26, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
4. Support. I can't say I'm happy with the Abu Ghraib article situation, but Pedant calls that the exception, not the rule, below, and we should, within reason, be flexible to different approaches in exceptional circumstances. Even looking at the situation very pessimistically, a mistake, or even a handful of mistakes, is not enough for me to oppose. - RedWordSmith 19:54, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
5. Support. ugen64 03:53, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
6. Support. Cool Hand Luke 05:48, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
7. Support Warofdreams 11:39, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
8. David Gerard 11:46, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
9. Netoholic's opposition is enough for me. now come on! that's not a real reason to oppose! Xtra 11:53, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

   But it's a valid reason to support? (see above) -- Netoholic @ 17:16, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)

   i was just making a point Xtra 01:19, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

10. Support Tuf-Kat 23:06, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
11. Support. Don't drag editing disputes into RFA. I don't like the fork myself, but the important point is that Pedant is able to build consensus, not that everybody agrees with all he says. dab (ᛏ) 10:43, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
12. Support. Carrp 23:16, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
13. Support. SWAdair | Talk 11:28, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
14. Support. Jayjg | (Talk) 17:40, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
15. Support, Xtra's point is enough for me.--Bishonen | Talk 00:40, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
16. Support. Looks good. --MPerel 05:18, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
17. Support. Fully agree with dab -- Ferkelparade π 16:00, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
18. Support. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 05:24, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
19. 172 21:23, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Sorry, no.Dr Zen 08:12, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
2. Not reading the instructions on RfA and forking articles are both worrying behaviors. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 00:28, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
3. Neutrality's support is enough for me. Netoholic^talk 07:10, 2005 Jan 9 (UTC)

   Oh, come on. I understand the point you're trying to make (that we shouldn't rely on other people, in either direction), but two wrongs don't make a right. Please decide on the person's own merits. (If you already did so, fine, but please so indicate.) Noel (talk) 18:47, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

4. No, not at this time. Salazar 03:09, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

   Welcome to Wikipedia! (Salazar joined us Jan 9) -- Netoholic @ 05:02, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)

   Thank you Salazar 06:14, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

   I have no idea who this is, but I thank 'eyr' for driving home the point that we desperately need access to IPs. dab (ᛏ) 10:43, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

   So much for assuming good faith and not biting newcomers! jguk 08:25, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

5. Not yet convinced jguk 08:25, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
6. --Mrfixter 02:38, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
7. I strongly disagree with your statement below that "There are extremely rare times when a stated policy needs to get bent, in order to fulfill the needs of the community." If you haven't yet found ways to find solutions to common problems within current policies, or gone through the proper steps to change these policies permanently, then I think you might need some more time getting used to Wikipedia. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 22:06, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I'd like to know more. --JuntungWu 04:11, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

   Me too, that's what got me interested in wikipedia in the first place. I've always loved encyclopedias. I used to use the related articles section in the World Book encyclopedia, to surf my way through it, trying to follow a wave of information as long as I could. Eventually I decided to just start at A and read to Z, to see what I missed. Now I have my browser home page set to 'random wikipedia page'. I like to try to get new editors hooked on wikipedia: if I email a reference source, I tell them about wikipedia and suggest several articles they might be interested in. I pretty much disapprove of supporting or opposing adminship, or anything else for that matter, based on who else supports or opposes. I've voted in opposition to Jimbo Wales at least once, for instance. If you have any specific questions, I'd be happy to answer them if I can. Pedant

2. Generally tend to be supportive of this, but not sure I know enough. Noel (talk) 18:47, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• His first edit was at 07:57 on July 31 2004. He has 3229 edits, about half of which are in the article space. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 00:28, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

  I'd be interested in what you mean by "not reading instructions" and "forking articles"... here please, I'm sure I'm not the only one who'd like to know. Pedant

  First, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship#Rules, then your edit; second, I undeleted the history of Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse (no pictures) (now a redirect) for the purpose of this RfA, this is the revision where you fork it. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 02:03, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

  Those are the instructions for nominating someone, I followed the instruction for self-nomination. I don't see any evidence that I 'didn't read' the instructions. Abu Ghraib was one article, not articles and it was up for deletion because of the pictures...the 'No pictures' version passed VfD on its merits... it now has a very clever workaround (not mine) implemented to avoid the pictures, which would not have happened if the pictures were simply removed or the article deleted. There are extremely rare times when a stated policy needs to get bent, in order to fulfill the needs of the community. I stand by my 'bold' decision to reproduce the article with no pictures.Pedant

  You are not someone? —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 22:50, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

A. Speedy deletion of obviously unsuitable pages, that one has recently come up a few times. Also until the block bug is fixed, I would be unblocking users whose block has expired. Mostly though, I'd still do the same chores, vandal reversions and the like would just, apparently, be easier or faster to do. I don't think that my general wikipedia lifestyle will change much, though I assume I'll probably do more (quantity of) chores if the new functions make them easier or faster.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A. Well, for some reason I seem to feel a great deal of pride that I was the one to add Atheism to Category:Religion.

My work on Wavy Gravy and pleases me a lot. I've done a great deal to Clown and related articles, such as Juggling and its sister articles. Of those, I think I've added valuable insight into what a clown is besides just a person in a funny costume, clown traditions and superstition, The Code of the Clown and the bit about Pete-and-re-Pete and That's Good/That's Bad. I'm pretty proud of my efforts toward categorizing the 'juggling constellation', and my description of the history of Mills Mess, Mill's Mess 'the easy way' and variants. I consider the Clown/Juggling/Circus constellation of articles as my 'hobby project' -- something I think every good wikipedian needs, to adopt a section of the wikipedia and tend it lovingly.

I added quite a bit of images and information to the (now featured article) Submarine , non-classified info about training and testing of personnel in the US Naval sub service, as well as some about history and tradition. This information was so extensive it was split out from Submarine and moved to Submarines in the United States Navy which is more than 95% entirely my work. It's incomplete, but a pretty good superstub for someone to add to. When I find a missing article, I tend to add one: one test for submariners is the ability to perform the Valsalva maneuver, named for Antonio Maria Valsalva for whom there was no article. I created one to remedy the omission.

I've worked on the 'Talk:' side of several controversial pages, and helped to establish consensus in several tricky spots.

On wikisource and the commons, I'm in the middle of scanning, Character Recognising editing uploading and organising NASA Facts, a large collection of NASA articles aimed at Elemntary-to-High school educators, covering the early experiments in space travel and telecommunications. I'm also working with a group of homeschool students, as a focus group for Wikijunior's first few publications and related issues.

Actually, I'm proud of all my work, even the minor changes and corrections. I'm also fairly proud of most of my behavior, particularly with regard to conflicts and criticism. I think I'm pretty good at welcoming newcomers who have stepped over a line, without biting them or encouraging vandalism.

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 will deal with it in the future?

A. Well there was the big George Voorhees and Terry Teene invented the character and costume of Ronald McD***** thing, which I guess must be considered original research. I'm still interested in backing up my claim with verifiable sources, but it will be a while. I felt a little bit like Galileo facing the Inquisition at the time, but because of some gentle guidance by several old hands, I think I have benefited from the experience.

I had quite a bit of a disagreement with the Ships Project people on their implementation of naming policy. There were 2 main policies regarding ship's names and they differed, and neither policy was being followed. I thought it was a very major issue, and I brought it to anyone's attention who would listen. The policies have been adjusted slightly, and the Ships Project participants are working on the issue of 'ships not ever called USS Something' having articles under the title USS Something. I'm leaving the issue in their capable hands, as its a very diligent group... They are working on it and it's getting worked out. I established a precedent with Category:Ships named Nautilus and Category:Ships by name which at first seemed at odds with the Ships Project, categories for ships with famous recurring names in multiple navies and in fiction. This caused some stress for some of us working on Naval History, until the merits of the categories became apparent.

I also ran into some of the CheeseDreams controversy on Cultural and historical background of Jesus (which article's awkward name I should be blamed for) and several other related articles. I tried to forge some sort of consensus between the two main factions, until it became sadly clear that consensus would never be reached. The protected articles that resulted have caused me some annoyance, I don't like to have protected articles.

I don't really get stressed by what happens on wikipedia, when I do, I just remind myself that I'm not the only editor, and that I can trust my colleagues to be just as diligent as I am, even if I'm not involved... then take a step back and work on something else. Pedant 20:18, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)