Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/PedanticallySpeaking

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

PedanticallySpeaking[edit]

At the candidate's request, the candidacy was withdrawn in September 2004 and no further votes should be cast here. Please do not edit this page as it is being saved for the historical record.

Final

(4/7/4) ends 20:05 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

PS has only been here a couple of months, but is very committed and hasn't put a foot wrong, as far as I can see. Deb 20:05, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • I am grateful to Deb for her kind words. Unlike my fellow Ohioan William Tecumseh Sherman, if elected I will serve. Ave atque vale! PedanticallySpeaking 20:10, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Since there seems to be such opposition, I ask that my nomination be removed.
    Some have noted adversely the frequent edits I do to articles, e.g. Mary Beth Peil, John W. Griffin, Dana Gioia. Rather than being a deliberate effort to inflate my count or that I don't know about the preview button, it is because I work at a public terminal in the library. These computers do not like the Wikipedia site for some reason and frequently crash when I use it. Therefore, I save very frequently so I do not lose data. Further, the browser here is hostile to multiple windows being open. So when researching, I save, go to a source, go back to add a fact to an article, save, go back to the source, and so on. Finally, the frequent saves tell me precisely what I added and when.
    As for the graf on my page about my edits, I saw another user had a count and dates of his landmark edits (50th, 100th, etc.). I thought this was a neat idea and posted it as much for my own reference as bragging. As it causes offense, I have removed it to the bottom of my page.
    Ave. PedanticallySpeaking 18:33, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)


Support

  1. Sewing - talk 21:18, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC): I am pleased with what I've seen of his contributions. I am sure that he'll make a competent and capable administrator.
  2. ugen64 04:01, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
  3. ffirehorse 21:59, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  4. Ambi 06:28, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Very good contributor, would support at a later date, see comments. CryptoDerk 21:40, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Netoholic @ 21:41, 2004 Sep 20 (UTC) - see below.
  3. Acegikmo1 22:02, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC). I haven't seen this user on any of the "administrative" pages yet, nor do I recognize him/her from edits any of the >1500 pages on my watchlist. Considering that PedanticallySpeaking has only been here for a month and a half, I feel that the user does not have sufficient experience to be an administrator. I am entirely willing to alter my vote in a future nomination. Acegikmo1 22:02, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  4. Has not been here very long, so I could not support unless this was a truly exceptional candidate in terms of edit quality, community involvement, and even temperament. The inflated edit count is not a disqualification, but means there is less substantive evidence to judge these things. Please come back later. --Michael Snow 00:03, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  5. Geogre 01:45, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC) Every interaction I have had with PedanticallySpeaking has been favorable, and I haven't any ill words or feelings or dark suspicions for him at all, but it is simply a matter of time at this point. I hope that he is renominated in 8 weeks or thereabouts, when there is a little more time passed. (And that other Ohioan burned my great-granddaddy's farm, but he also said mean things about Texas, so it balances out.)
  6. I would like to echo all of the positive comments, above. Would support after he has more time here and more involvement in administrative-type tasks. (I've left links on his talk page to indicate how he can become active in that area). Looking forward to supporting at a later date. SWAdair | Talk 02:24, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  7. Not yet. Perhaps when you have more of a feel for the 'pedia... -- Grunt 🇪🇺 17:06, 2004 Sep 21 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. I echo most of Acegikmo1's comments, but vote neutral instead of flat out oppose. Anyone who uses Latin that much can't be bad. Sorry. --Golbez 00:19, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
  2. There's no harm in waiting, oh, six weeks. —No-One Jones (m) 04:02, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. He has done some great work. I will support him after two months. --Lst27 00:03, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  4. Ave atque vale! --MerovingianѤTalk 10:47, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
  5. Edit count means nothing to me. In my opinion PedanticallySpeaking has made unquestionably valuable contributions and edits. I accept his/her explanation of the frequent edits, I've had similar difficulties on my own computer. I would like to see this editor performing more 'chores' such as watching for vandalism, cross-referencing, etc., however. I think that this editor would not abuse sysop priveleges, but I prefer adminship to be reserved for people willing to do more of the grunt work as well. Have seen this user to be active on the discuss page of several pages that have had active discussion. (no relation)Pedant 16:34, 2004 Oct 28 (UTC)

Comments

  • 2173 edits in 46 days. Many are repeated edits over a short period of time, see this and this. Don't really see any reverts, vandalism fighting, but active in the Wikipedia: space. CryptoDerk 21:40, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Those 2000 edits seem to come in runs of multiple minor edits, and about 10% in his user space. For anyone that uses the "2000" marker for admin readiness, I don't think this is enough in this case. In one example, user made 50 edits to Mary Beth Peil in the span of an hour on Sep 2. Can't support someone with little knowledge of the "Show preview" button. I also worry that people know that 2000 is a common threshold for adminship, and it worries me that this user tracks their own edit status so closely and then goes fishing for a nomination. Seems too eager, too soon. Maybe later. -- Netoholic @ 21:42, 2004 Sep 20 (UTC)
  • I am very impressed by the quality of this user's contributions. Acegikmo1 22:03, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I accept this contributor's explanation of frequent edits. Public library computer terminals can be unreliable. ffirehorse 02:28, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

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

1. Have you read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list?
A.
2. Are you interested in, and do you think you'll have some time to perform, the chores that only sysops have access to do, to help keep Wikipedia up to date?
A.
3. If you become a sysop, which sysop chore or chores (WP:VFD, recent changes, watching for vandals and vandalism, responding to editor requests for assistance, any other) do you especially think you would be able to help with.
A.
4. In your opinion, what article have you contributed the most succesfully and helpfully to?
A.
5. In your opinion, what has your best contribution to the running and maintenance of Wikipedia been? (i.e., have you reverted a bad stretch of vandalism, done extensive work categorizing articles, helped mediate a dispute?)
A.
6. 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/PedanticallySpeaking&oldid=1085556299"