Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pedro

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mainemainer (talk | contribs) at 20:56, 22 June 2007 (→Discussion: trolling). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Pedro

Voice your opinion (talk page) (35/4/2); Scheduled to end 07:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Pedro (talk · contribs) - It is with great pleasure that I nominate Pedro for adminship. Pedro first entered the Wikipedia arena in July 2006, and has been a solid contributor ever since. He contributes greatly to Wikipedia vandal fighting, with over 50 reports to AIV. He also does a good deal of work at WP:AN/I, and when he has time left over, he votes in AfD debates! This is certainly a user who has shown he can be trusted with the tools, and I think he'll make an excellent administrator. Ladies and Gentlemen, Pedro! G1ggy Talk/Contribs 07:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

With kind thanks to my nominee, and with due regard to the scrutiny of my peers I accept.Pedro |  Chat  09:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I trust my answers and contributions will provide enough evidence to other editors as to whether they should support or oppose this proposition. I will be delighted to reply to any extra questions as required. My edit count is probably low in some editors opinions. I occasionly use AWB for edits, but the vast majority of my contributions are "direct" rather than automated. Whatever the outcome of this RfA, I intend to learn from it and continue my activities here, whether I have a couple more buttons or not.

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: As discussed with nominator there are two initial areas I would wish to help out in. Firstly we are all aware of the frequent backlogs at CAT:CSD. I estimate I have made about two hundred sd-tags to pages, as evidenced by the discrepancy between server count and the count using the tools below (a review of contributions should indicate a number of "advise user of sd tag" edit summaries). I watch the outcome of these, and to date only one article I have tagged as speedy has not been removed through this process, and indeed went on to fail at WP:AFD. I check these things, to ensure that I am tagging within policy. I find that attack pages are a particular issue recently, and there is no question that their prompt removal is essential for the good health and public perception of Wikipedia. My second area, as evidenced by over 50 reports, is WP:AIV. Again, I check the logs at this page and to my knowledge all my reports have resulted in a preventative block. Again, I check these to ensure my interpretation of the policy is correct (i.e. repeated blatant vandalism with the correct warnings, not accidcental page blanking etc.) I realise that a number of applicants cite these two locations, but as per recent conversations at WT:RFA I see no reason why these are not great locations to start (and continue working at) with the tools.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: In terms of main space my edits are generally minor or on subjects I know about. A look at my highest main space contribution might give away a bit about my physical location - not a lot I can do about that! I believe my value so far has been in discourse with other users, in trying to help genuine good faith contributors (even when they were wildly off the mark!) and, perhaps most importantly changing my mind. Being strong is a good admin trait, but being flexible and reviewing others opinions, and adopting them when they are better than your own, is also very important. I have done some (not a huge amount) of work at WP:AFD and was particularly pleased, for example when this article was saved from deletion by doing some research into it's correct name. In addition I allways try to offer neutral or moral support to RfA's that are clearly going to fail, as there has been talk that these editors then get disgusted with the whole project and end up moving on. These things may be small, but I believe they combine into contributions I can be proud of.
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 have had a lot of confrontation over articles that are blatantly speedy delete candidates. I'm sure it's frustrating when an editor spends time creating an article about their band and some editor just turns up and tags it. I do use standard templates to advise these editors, but allways try to explain the reasons why in a civil fashion. I've had disagreements of view point on numerous talk pages, once used WP:SARCASM without thinking (I've learned from that!), but have endeavoured to allways be WP:CIVIL. A long time back I initiated this thread over a user who has now sadly left the project. At the time I felt her attitude was brusque to the point of rudeness. The community felt otherwise, and I acknowledged that I was wrong and "over touchy". I'm a fair bit more resilient now - once you've had your user page vandalised a few times you get used to it! Other than that I do try to follow WP:TEA when the editing gets hot.
4 Question(s) by Haemo: Since you mention that you want to help out with speedy deletion, I wanted to just ask you a couple of questions relating to that. Specifically, you mention that a "backlog" is often the problem -- however, this can be considered in a couple of ways; firstly, as a numerical backlog (too many articles), or as a time backlog (too many old tags). Which of these do you (1) feel is more important, and (2) what deficiencies (if any) do you see in the current system? Also, as a user who will be evaluating these requests, (3) where do you draw the line on what an "assertion of notability", with respect to criterion A7, and do hoaxes qualify under the G1 nonsense criterion. Haemo 02:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A An excellent set of questions. To deal in order : 1) The backlog is was refering to is really numerical, but all backlogs need to be addressed. As above, when an attack page sits for 20 minutes there is a real concern, wheras a dictionary defenition that needs to be transwikied is less "urgent". I'm thinking about the public face of wikipedia. Given most activity on wiki is not using a mop and not even writing articles, but people actually reading them, it seems clear to me that certain speedy requests need a "higher priority" than others. This is not limited to attack pages - copy vios, spam and unfair images all come in here. With this in mind I would be looking at the breakdown by sub cat rather than the main list. 2) With regard to any deficiencies I see the CAT:CSD page to be one of the easier ones around here. If anything the only failing to the system is that we need a few more people to help out. As I mentioned above, an editor creating a new article that sees it quickly tagged must get very frustrated, but I imagine that frustration increases if they then spend twenty minutes continuing to develop it before it gets deleted. That's where we lose potentially great editors in their first interaction. I think that (and I know it's time) there is value in reviewing the contributions to an obviously speedy article and occasionally dropping a note to the creating editor on why it's gone. This also stops a lot of talk page "hey, where's my article" comments. Obviously blatant SPAM / vandalism doesn't fall here - I'm thinking more bands, new star up companies etc. 3) Assertion of notability. If in doubt, don't delete. A talk page "hey this company is brand new but they are going to be massive" is not an assertion. A line in an article "They are really well known in the Bay area" is not notable. A comment in the article "They have appeared on BBC News" gives one pause for thought. A simple Google test may help, but caution is best. I'd also intend to follow up any article that was not a clear cut speedy, to try and add value at AFD. 4) Hoaxes do not fault under G1 unless they are blatant. By this I mean a new article "2007 purchase of Red Rum's bones by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth" - would require a bit of wider discussion to establish a) if it's a hoax and b) if not where it needs to go to. However an article entitled "2007 purcahse of the whole world by Bill Gates" probably needs to be recommended to The Onion but would be vandalism and therefore speedy.

Optional question by AldeBaer

5. Since we all started out as readers of this encyclopedia, I'd like to know what your three (or more) favourite reads on Wikipedia are (may be articles, or even policy pages, whatever you like), ideally with a short explanation as to what especially you like about them.
A: I appreciate you have already expressed you opinon of support, but I really do want to answer this as it's very germane. I spend a lot of time simply reading the 'pedia. As you rightly guess that's how I first came to it. Whilst reading I may see the odd error and quickly fix it. My main interests lie in such things as;
1.Space shuttle is a great article with fabulous extra links from it. How else would you find out the the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft has "Place Orbiter Here - Black Side Down" written on it!!
2.STS-117 and backwards! I often find the 'pedia to be better sourced than even, say, the BBC and with greater coverage of live events that will still be encyclopedic in twenty years.
3.Nineteen Eighty-Four which I ran into recently has a great wiki-source link to the book, which I spent a pleasent day reading - again the wonders of how a minor wikilink ends up into a voyage of discovery.
4.WP:HORSEMEAT to include a wikipedia essay. A true gem.
The important point here references the concerns in oppose of my RfA. I love reading, and I love the maintenance. I'm no expert on space flight or the greatest books of the last century. Editing for editings sake (or for edit-count) would seem worthless when there are people better qualified than me to add real value. Imagine Encyclopedia Brittanica being created only by academics. Geniuses in their subjects but with no knowledge of proof-reading, typesetting, publishing, binding, getting the book to the bookseller etc. all their work becomes valueless. In an ideal world their would be no vandalism and every editor would recongise our notability guidelines before putting their content in. Alas, we do not live in an ideal world. So I read, I learn, and I try to keep this work clean and tidy so others may do so as well.

General comments

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

Discussion

Support

  1. Nominator support! Good luck! G1ggy Talk/Contribs 00:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong support Oh yeah baby! Second to the polls! Cheers, JetLover (Talk) (Sandbox) 00:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Would make a great admin. Oysterguitarist~Talk 00:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Vote for Pedro. xD -N 00:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be shocked if anyone could oppose after that :P Why didn't I think of it myself?! G1ggy Talk/Contribs 01:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Would make a great admin, totally support his work. Warrush 01:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Definately will make a great admin. Captain panda 01:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. Well, N stole my witty joke, but in all seriousness, Pedro appears to be a knowledgeable and experienced editor who is willing to admit mistakes -- both excellent adminship qualities. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 01:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Looks like a great user who would do great with the mop, due to the fact that he is experienced in the administrative areas in which he wishes to assist. ♠TomasBat 01:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. Definate support, great candidate. You'll do great :) Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 01:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I have seen this user around wikipedia and I trust that he will make a fine admin.--†Sir James Paul† 01:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Adminship is no big deal, (and even if it was, I'd still support Pedro :-)) ~ Wikihermit 01:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support I found the answers to the questions very very thought out and complete. Thank you! Gutworth (talk) 02:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Strong Support: Great editor with good contributions and good answerers to the questions. Eddie 02:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support - Though typically I like a higher edit count the amount of time he has been here breaks any qualms. Also, there is always the saying Quality not quantity. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 02:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Strong Support I had actually though Pedro was admin, but I'm happy I get to support him here. And, as a bonus, he has the name of one of my favorite baseball players of all time, Pedro Martinez. Black Harry (T|C) (Go Red Sox!) 03:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support I reviewed your contributions, katewannabe count and user talk page and could find no reason not to support you. --Ozgod 03:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. Although I have not interacted with this iser, I have read with great interest the discussions this user takes part in, especially at WT:RFA. Although I disagree with many of this user's points in the discussions in which he participates, Pedro's contributions to discussions are the kind of reasonable and well-thought comments I consider to be creditable evidence for suitability in adminship. Although it is important to write articles, I feel that it is not an applicable reason to oppose this candidate - I feel that Pedro will be the kind of administrator who keeps the wiki free for hard-core writers to do what they do best. One can contribute to Wikipedia in more ways than mainspace text. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 04:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Insert standard "thought you were already message". Jmlk17 05:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Strong support, joining the "wasn't... already" clique, and Pedro has always come across a very civil and friendly editor with a fabulous attitude towards the project. No issues here. - Zeibura (Talk) 06:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support -- Seems to be a well rounded editor, but some of the concerns posed by the neutrals need to be looked at. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk -- (dated 07:13, 22 June 2007 UTC)
  21. Support - per analysis of contributions, personal interaction previously, and good answer to the questions above. --Haemo 08:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support - very good editor who I bump into almost every where, would make a great admin. --Lwarf Talk! 08:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support True, the low contribution count to actual articles is perhaps unusual. But administrative work and editorial work have become increasingly separate beasts as the project balloons. Committed contributors like Pedro are deserving of the mop. Eusebeus 09:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support with a bit of unasked advice :) - I think there is still a bit of that "touchiness" you mentioned. From my interactions with you and what little I have seen of you in discussions, I think you would do better to assume good faith more often but more importantly, Assume the assumption of good faith and Assume the presence of a belly-button. Of course you are more than civil and I often find your arguments thoughtful. I see from your contributions that you have done consistently good work, so there is no good reason to oppose.:) - TwoOars 10:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Cautious Support per Twooars. I was on the fence, but I think xe sums it up nicely above. Majorly (talk) 10:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. I see Pedro's votes in RfAs all the time, and they're usually well-reasoned, which causes me to think highly of his judgment. Plus, no one's brought up any reasons to oppose. Waltonalternate account 11:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. No doubt one of Wikipedia's finest editors, and these editors always gain my support. ;) –Sebi ~ 11:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support - as per Majorly and Twooars..--Cometstyles 12:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Terence 13:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support - Trustworthy and committed to the project. (!Vote for Pedro.) -- Jreferee (Talk) 14:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support, of course. Tim{speak} 15:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support, of course. ("changed" from neutral)—AldeBaer 15:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
    Candidate insulted my question as being "very germane", which indeed I am and I take great insult in his slandering my nationality. However, changing to strong support for an expectably good answer .-) —AldeBaer 16:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support No problems here. Would be a great admin. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support- Pedro seems well suited for the mop, based on the jobs he intends to make use of with the privileges. I can look past his editing history and see that his need for the mop is suited for his situation, and ultimately would make a good admin. Curran (talk | contibs | random) 16:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 18:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support - I have seen you around Wikipedia and you have done a lot of good work even if that is not actual article writing. I think you have enough experience for the tools and will make sensible use of them. Camaron1 | Chris 18:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support and how can I not Vote for Pedro? --tennisman 20:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Pedro offers us his protection! :) Riana (talk) 20:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. I don't think the candidate is familiar enough with actually writing articles. As far as I can tell the only times he's ever added substantial new content to an article are [1] and [2] and that was all unreferenced. I admit this is a bit of a pet peeve, admins who don't know how to write encyclopedia articles properly, I see them bumbling around and causing problems when they get into sensitive situations that require an understanding and appreciation of how articles are written. Then there was an exchange with me on WT:RFA where it was clear his being sarcastic was leading to misunderstandings with multiple editors, and he kept being sarcastic. he took the debate to my talk page and the talk page of someone else who complained [3]. All over some minor misunderstanding... just seemed like a worrying overreaction. --W.marsh 11:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weak Oppose, sorry. Looks promising, but I have lack of experience concerns, particularly in the project space.--Húsönd 14:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose I agree very much so with JayHenry, on his comments regarding your Wikipedia activity, and how much of it deals with administration. It can be viewed in different respects, mind you, but I see it as a flag. There are people who contribute to Wikipedia to simply become admins and hold their mighty wielding strength, and then there are people who have been here years, make thousands of edits, and never once consider the spot. Now, Pedro, you have, roughly, the same amount of contributions to Wikipedia as I do (two hundred more than me). Your highest article Mainspace edit count is 12 to Bishopstoke, while mine is 484 to Red Hot Chili Peppers, followed by 134. Now I'm not the one being scrutinized here, but, nonetheless, I like an admin to be well rounded not only in the Wikipedia aspect of things, but in the actual articles we're all here to write. Out of the 15 different sections of Wikipedia listed at your edit counter, 13 of them have something to do with administrators. Your have two Portal contributions, and they are both made to a seemingly non-existent portal. You haven't shown any interest in Images, which can be an integral part of being an admin (Fair use disputes, deleting images, etc.). Really, I think it's high time you strayed out of RFA and head into some more concrete editing. I have no intention of being rude, mean, or disrespectful, mind you, but, please, join a WikiProject. Regards, NSR77 TC 15:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per W.marsh. Article work should be the main focus of any editor on Wikipedia. I think you're a bit weak on the article editing side, and most of your mainspace work appears to be RC patrol or AWB edits. Also, I find your sarcasm at WT:RFA really unhelpful. Responding with sarcastic and witty comments to other users is something you want to avoid on Wikipedia. I feel that discussion-style editing is a good evaluator of how a user can handle him or herself in normal everyday situations that they would encounter as administrators. As you could infer from what I wrote above, I'm not too confident about this, and so I must oppose this RfA. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral for now. I see you are still using sarcasm to editors: "(1. Wikipedia does not cite itself. 2. There's a "what links here" button just over to the left. A bit further left. That's it !) " [4] (June 1) Agreed it's mild, and I wouldn't have been personally offended, but there are eds. here who would. DGG 17:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. That is the kind of edit summary open to misinterpretation as being offensive rather than humour. I shall learn from your comments, and thank you for your time in reviewing my contributions and commenting here. Pedro |  Chat  18:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Pedro&oldid=139983015"