Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Raymond arritt: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Semperf (talk | contribs)
7,465 edits
→‎Discussion: Supporting
Line 74: Line 74:
#'''Support'''—solid contributions, good answers to questions. --[[User:Paul Erik|Paul Erik]] 17:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
#'''Support'''—solid contributions, good answers to questions. --[[User:Paul Erik|Paul Erik]] 17:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
#'''Support''' [[User_talk:Semperf|<font color="#008000"><b><i>semper fictilis</i></b></font>]] 18:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
#'''Support''' [[User_talk:Semperf|<font color="#008000"><b><i>semper fictilis</i></b></font>]] 18:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
#'''Support''' -- More than fit for the promotion. Good luck to you.<span style="font-family:Vivaldi; background-color:#FFFFFF;">[[User:KensingtonBlonde|<span style="font-size:13.5pt; color:#00008B;">The Kensington Blonde</span>]]<sub> [[User Talk:KensingtonBlonde|<span style="color:#6495ED;">Talk</span>]]</sub></span> 19:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


'''Oppose'''
'''Oppose'''

Revision as of 19:29, 23 July 2007

Raymond arritt

Voice your opinion (talk page) (31/0/1); Scheduled to end 00:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Raymond arritt (talk · contribs) - Raymond arritt is one of our best editors on global warming and related articles. I had simply assumed he was an admin until a recent comment of his noted otherwise. He edits in an area where the admin bit is often a necessity, and his personality is more-or-less unflappable. I think he would make an excellent admin. Raul654 00:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Thank you. Raymond Arritt 02:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I want to help out where help is needed. My perception is that the present admin corps is overextended, which leads to backlogs in some areas; for example, as I write this there are unresolved 3RR reports that are several days old. In areas where I have little prior experience I would hang back and watch for a while to see how things are done before leaping in. My concept of an admin is a regular editor who has some special abilities to help out by protecting articles, keeping out vandals, and the like. There are some folks who are essentially full-time admins, and I respect that, but I think that remaining active as an editor gives one a perspective of what it's like down in the trenches.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Although I have expertise in a specific discipline and that's perhaps what comes to people's minds when they look at my contributions, what I really enjoy is polishing prose so that it's clear, concise, and effective. Strunk and White is my fountainhead. It's often said that Wikipedia does reasonably well on information content but that the prose tends to be verbose or unclear. I think that's a fair criticism and we could do more to spruce things up. An example of my work is an extensive copyedit that I did on Germany that helped to bring it up to FA.
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: Stress? No. For me stress is when you're diagnosed with cancer, not when someone insults you on Wikipedia. Early in my experience as an editor I found this friendly comment on my talk page, so I've long known that it can be rough-and-tumble here. And there are times when I've been disillusioned with the project for various reasons. I have edited in some controversial areas and there have been occasions when I've been less tactful than I should have. Conversely there have been times when I've defended editors who have the opposite take on an issue than myself. Often on the global warming related articles there are people who make remarks on the talk pages with seemingly little purpose other than to vent about how it's all a liberal plot or some such. I think that one of the best ways to deal with provocations is to shrug and walk away. I'm glad to let someone else have the last word as long as it doesn't negatively affect the article.
4. Optional question from SlimVirgin:
Hi Raymond, I have a concern about your intervention recently in WP:V, where you seemed to be advocating "scientific point of view" (SPOV). I completely agree with you that academic sources are almost always better than non-academic ones. Still, I worry about editors who want to lay down a rule that says non-academic sources may never be used in certain areas, no matter how reliable they are, unless academic sources are not available — any such rule would lead to SPOV, not NPOV. Yet that seemed to be the position you were advocating. Can you clearly state your position on this issue, please, as it pertains to the policies? That is, do you believe the policies should formally state that only academic sources may be used in certain articles? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 05:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make this question harder, please SV and you may displease the rest of us... I thought your view as expressed (you seemed to say that notability was less important than credibility on matters of science: so we have to put Al Gore's views on global warming below those of a peer reviewed paper written by a post-doc in Physics Letters) were totally on the ball whereas SV was taking a position which was theoretically pure but impractical given the nature of science and those who comment on it... so the 6 million dollar answer is? --BozMo talk 07:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My answer is essentially what BozMo said. While non-academic sources are sometimes useful even in scientific fields, where the two conflict it's dangerous to state that non-academic and academic sources are on an equal footing. There's a trend these days for some scientists to argue a point of view in the popular press, making scientifically indefensible statements that would never survive peer review. (I could give some names, but will refrain from doing so in respect of WP:BLP.) Those statements then get picked up and used by policymakers -- and some Wikipiedia editors -- to argue against mountains of peer-reviewed evidence. Stating that the mainstream press is just as reliable as Physical Review Letters takes us away from WP:NPOV by providing excessive weight for small-minority positions. Raymond Arritt 12:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Raymond arritt before commenting.

Discussion

Support

  1. Support - You're really not an admin yet? thought you were, as well. Raymond has been an outstanding editor, remaining civil while editing articles on the contentious topic of global warming, and is well-suited to be an admin. --Aude (talk) 01:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. Also suprised you're not an admin. Reviewing your contributions confirms my belief that you should be. WjBscribe 01:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Pretty damn obvious, really. Daniel 01:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oh yeah, good choice. Civil, sensible, well-spoken, intelligent, great editor, should do good things. ~ Riana ⁂ 01:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Raul nominating...that's something you don't see everyday! Giggy UCP 01:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Per the above. Kwsn(Ni!) 01:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support A very impressive editor. Definately gets my support. Captain panda 02:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support That many edits to global warming and no stress? Impressive contributions. the_undertow talk 02:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support An excellent editor, and a voice of reason even in contentious topics. Hal peridol 02:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strong support per his record and answers above. He is another real editor who works effectively on controversial articles. Vsmith 02:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support I support a full time editor who does some admin work --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 03:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support mop is well-deserved for this user. Keep it up, (→O - RLY?) 03:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Strong support, per good answers to questions and my experience interacting with Raymond. We need more admins with experience editing controversial topics and keeping cool. The lot of an expert editing a controversial topic is not an easy one, but Raymond has fulfilled it admirably and will do good work with the tools. Absolutely no concerns. MastCell Talk 03:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support It is time to give this user the mop. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Apparently, long overdue. If people say they thought you were an admin already, that shows that you are an exemplary editor, worthy of the mop. J-stan Talk 03:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. Candidate appears to be a dedicated contributor and should make a good admin. Majoreditor 03:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support I think the tools will go to good use here. Jmlk17 03:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. Who will be next week's global warming veteran? Dragons flight 03:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Can't see why you're not an admin already. (aeropagitica) 04:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. -- Y not? 04:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support A very useful editor to have around --Nethgirb 07:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. Very patient, very knowledgable, and, to quote someone from another RfA: "far more sensible than me". --Stephan Schulz 07:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Strong Support Quite a shock to learn not already an admin: one of the most sensible people in the whole of Wikipedia/ --BozMo talk 07:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support this outstanding user. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 08:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Solid editor, calm demeanour, should be good with the tools. Orderinchaos 10:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Experienced in all the right areas. Lradrama 12:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Of course —AldeBaer (c) 14:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Strong Support conspicuously admin material. —Anas talk? 14:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support I like your general attitude to wikipedia, and found your answer the optional question to be very well put. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 16:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support see no reason to not support.--Jersey Devil 17:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support—solid contributions, good answers to questions. --Paul Erik 17:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support semper fictilis 18:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support -- More than fit for the promotion. Good luck to you.The Kensington Blonde Talk 19:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

  1. Neutral Pending answer to Q4--Hirohisat Talk 06:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Raymond_arritt&oldid=146591572"