User:Lomn/RFA

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lomn
&mdash; I've been at Wikipedia for not quite 3 years. Shortly after arrival, I jumped into involvement with CSD, AfD (then VfD), Recent Changes, and so forth. That backed off for a combination of tiring of wading through vandalistic garbage (particularly the image vandals) and a recognition that, at that point, my ideas of what was "encyclopedic" didn't really mesh with consensus. Since then I've made an effort to grasp the policies and nature of the project, which means a lot of lurking at ANI and a loose awareness of the Wikipedia-wide Arbcom cases. I've also spent a lot of time watching various admins to get a feel for how Wikipedia works at the individual admin level.

As for WP participation, most of my day-to-day activity is at the Reference Desk, thus the unseasonably high contributions to project space. It's one of those things that's of debatable value to the project, but I find it rewarding from a self-education perspective and I've hopefully added value to the other users over the years.

As far as article space, my edits tend towards stub-sized rather than FAs. I'd like to get that Great American Football Article written, but I've never managed to set aside the time for it, and all the topics I listed out when lamenting the lack of a relevant Wikiproject 3 years ago have been well-covered since. I also go with the "revert vandalism / fix grammar" on an as-I-see-it basis, frequently resulting from research done for a particular Reference Desk topic.

From a policy perspective, I consider myself well-versed. As noted, I've lurked regularly through ANI and related pages for some time, observing the evolution of applied policy. I've observed a great many discussions about consensus and voting and how, though we may wish otherwise, the two are linked and require negotiation to establish the precise balance between them. I've realized that none of us are perfect and that it's fine for me to respect a user I don't agree with. Most importantly, though, I've realized that, should I be promoted, it does not fall to me to be the arbiter of all things. It's fine to say "I don't know, why don't you ask R instead" or to have a proposed idea rejected. Wikipedia is not, and will not become, a game I have to win.

If promoted, I pledge to place myself open to recall per the default process (subject to future tweaking of the criteria during non-controversial periods -- I'm not entirely on top of the ins and outs of recall systems and reserve the right to modify the process as my understanding improves).

My comments for RfA review may be of interest.

As a self-nom, I think it's vitally important that I offer prima facie evidence that I am a Colts fan. May we consider that the end of discussion should Kurt weigh in? Thanks.


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

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 admin work do you intend to take part in?
 * A:
 * I intend to start small. While I've regularly lurked at ANI and other places for years, the prime mover for assembling this RfA was the recent RefDesk fun with a troll who disrupted site layout and operation.  The admin bit would allow me to respond more effectively should further stuff like that result -- and unless that particular Bugzilla fix is implemented (not linking, per WP:BEANS, but can supply if requested), I expect it'll continue to happen.
 * Beyond that, I've got no real desire to play an Enforcer role. Rather, I see involvement with the admin equivalent of wikignoming -- stuff like the "noncontroversial maintenance" provisions of CSD G6-8 and the like.  They're things I've encountered while editing that can easily be resolved.  Given that I lurk at ANI, being available for the occasional "WP:X is backlogged!" posts seems reasonable, too.


 * At some point I expect I'll see "doesn't demonstrate need for tools because of lack of participation at X". I'll peremptorily say "nonsense".  That's a specious argument that needs to go away.  Suppose I spent time at AIV that I presently spend at the Ref Desk -- all I've demonstrated is that I've already got all the tools required to report vandalism.  How would I demonstrate that I need the tools relevant to AIV?  Try to press a block button that isn't there?  I can't.
 * A couple caveats on this:
 * This distinguishes "shows need for tools" from "shows understanding of how the tools should be applied". The latter is perfectly valid.
 * This is a recently-formulated rant untested by debate. If I'm way offbase and there's a good measure, please feel free to discuss.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A:
 * Day beacon was a DYK that has held up, I think, quite well in the intervening 3 years.
 * I took I formation from an initial stub to a respectable article core, and later referenced the history section.
 * I provided a good bit of cleanup for Wide receiver and expanded some of the associated terminology. The sourcing is admittedly weak, but I think it's better than nothing (and it's also non-controversial, which helps).
 * I provided some technical details for the rules at Fumble, which also includes some of my first efforts at collaboration via talk page rather than unilateral boldness. I'm not often editing in areas where I find that strictly necessary, but I've continued to maintain efforts to leave notes regarding major changes.
 * Along those lines, I recently junked unreferenced lists from NHL Entry Draft while adding a referenced section on how draft order is determined. The latter filled a talk page request, and the former's removal was noted along with my reasons why, thoughts on re-adding, and a diff link to the removed content for easy reference.  I think this makes for a good illustration on where I take action with regards to WP:NOT -- there's a little OR, a little indiscriminate listing, and too much scale to be of use to the average reader.
 * Image:Swinging_strikeout.jpg has nicely illustrated strikeout for a couple years now, though I wouldn't be surprised to see the recently-added Image:UT_softball_2007.jpg supplant it -- it's a much crisper picture.
 * In most of these cases, I don't see these contributions as necessarily "finished". I'd like to dredge up better references for the football articles, for instance -- just as soon as I find a book of appropriate scope for my shelf.


 * 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:
 * Sure. A recent example would be User:Ericthebrainiac's editing behavior.  Eric is a user who's been around for give-or-take a year now, and I've kept an eye on him for virtually that entire time.  He doesn't get Wikipedia, and a lot of his stuff is entirely out of place here, but he also contributes productively to his area of obsession.  Telling Eric for the umpteenth time that the soap opera he's writing doesn't belong on Wikipedia is frustrating -- and that frustration shows through in some of the comments on his talk page.  However, I've also done my best to suggest productive outlets and remind other editors (when block discussions have arisen) that he's also contributed usefully.
 * On the whole, though, I think it's fair to say that I've maintained an ability to back away and shrug stuff off. Per a general adherence to Eventualism, I'm fine with not sweating the small stuff.

Additional questions

 * Block vs Ban?
 * A block is about 2 hectares (in Manhattan).
 * A ban is about 0.4¢.
 * Honestly, this question serves to see if I can parrot back policy. It's not a useful evaluator.  The answer is, in fact, found by placing "a block and a ban" in Google and hitting "I'm Feeling Lucky!"  I've expressed my general familiarity with core policies (and desire to tread lightly where they are less familiar) above.

General comments

 * See Lomn's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.

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