Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alteripse

Alteripse
final (19/1/0) ending 19:18 24 January 2005 (UTC)

Alteripse has been with us for about nine months, and has over 1700 edits to his/her name. S/he has contributed to a wide variety of articles but has been most prolific in the area of medicine/health sciences. I have come across Alteripse from time to time throughout the past months, but today I first noticed, to my surprise, that s/he is not an yet an admin. I decided to nominate him/her right away. Taco Deposit | Talk-o Deposit 19:18, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the nomination. I edit most days, prefer to write whole articles, but also contribute to group articles, do regular reference desk duty and occasional new article & recent changes patrol. I suffer from low-grade cases of wikepediholism and academic standards disease with occasional flare ups. (And "he" is correct.) alteripse 02:23, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Taco Deposit | Talk-o Deposit 19:18, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) gadfium 22:40, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) —Charles P. (Mirv) 23:26, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutralitytalk 01:03, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Michael Snow 18:38, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) I thought he was one already. David Gerard 21:02, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Great respect for Alter Ipse Amicus ("a Friend is another Self"). Very good at the Reference Desk and many core scientific topics, as well as clinical medicine material. JFW | T@lk  21:13, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Nunh-huh 21:16, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Always seems to be intelligent and even-tempered when I'm looking. :-) Jwrosenzweig 01:15, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Geni 03:00, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 11)  SWAdair | Talk  03:56, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Lst27 ( t a l k )  23:28, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) significant contribution to medical topics. --MPerel( talk 01:31, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Support. User edits in topics I don't touch at all, and uses the community as all should. Jordi·✆ 08:04, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Appears to be a sound user. Xtra 08:23, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) R yan!  |  Talk  14:53, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) He sure knows the doctoring. adamsan  10:37, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) I usually don't support anyone <2000 edits, but since he adds lots of good quality material I'm making an exception. jni 10:49, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) I'd say support but I'm hoping to hear the answers for "Questions for the candidate" before moving my vote that way. --JuntungWu 06:56, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC) Formally moving my vote to support. --JuntungWu 08:08, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) i respect alteripse. however, i feel alteripse needs more experience with the community and wikipedia before becoming an admin. Kingturtle 10:10, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments
 * Alteripse's first edit was at 00:25 on April 5 2004, and has 1786 edits as of now. 955 of them are in the article space, as of the last CSV. Lots of talk, lots of meaty contribs. Started the article Fecal fat, which ought to have an award just for name. Seems to know his shit. &mdash;Ben Brockert (42) UE News  02:36, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Then why don't you support his candidacy? Not meant to be accusatory; just a sincere question. Taco Deposit | Talk-o Deposit 14:55, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Taco, I may be wrong, but I think Ben usually avoids voting, perhaps because it allows him to post his stats and comments with less apparent bias? I may be way off, but I thought I had heard this / sussed it out for myself. Jwrosenzweig 01:15, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I do sometimes avoid voting for that reason. In this case, it was primarily because he had not yet answered the standard questions, since I added them when I added my stats. &mdash;Ben Brockert (42) UE News  01:52, Jan 19, 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. Ref desk, copyediting, recent change patrol. I'll pay more attention to feat art cand and vfd. Since we have articles on pokemon cards and video game characters, our threshold for accepting any article with real facts about something in the real world that someone took the trouble to write should be pretty low.
 * Uh, are any of those actual sysop chores? Could you clarify why you want to be an admin specifically, over and above being a respected contributor?--Bishonen | Talk 02:23, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Pick the answer you like best from among the following. I think all are true.alteripse 04:48, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * 1) I hadn't asked for nomination and hadn't even looked at the description of admin powers before this, and just this week printed out all the admin reading pages. I haven't finished but i gather at least a couple of those things (like fire fighting) are done more easily with admin powers.
 * 2) I started doing these community activities when I had the power to do them; I will probably start doing additional community activities if I have the pwer to do other things.
 * 3) Admin status is probably a way to increase the commitment of respected users to the project, whether they immediately do lots of admin stuff or not.
 * A. See my user page for major contributions. I rewrote a number of articles that I thought were improvable: e.g. puberty, androgen insensitivity syndrome, David Reimer. I wrote a number of large articles from the ground up: the whole suite of congenital adrenal hyperplasia articles, the growth hormone articles (growth hormone deficiency,growth hormone treatment,HGH quackery. I rewrote the phimosis article sort of as an experiment to see if I could produce a stable factual article on a topic that had been the subject of the circumcision wars; so far both sides have been relatively accepting.
 * 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. A few; I don't seek them out. I find the two biggest aggravations are (1) pov warriors who deliberately reject npov and will not discuss content, and (2) someone with less expertise who degrades an article I wrote by inserting erroneous information or narrowing the pov presented and is then unable/unwilling to negotiate correction or argue the text instead of imaginary or strawman positions. The first category are generally easily recognized by the community and should be warned and ejected if uneducable. The second is more difficult, and tests my patience. I have spent a lot of time trying to think about ways we could prevent entropic degradation of well-written articles without compromising the wiki system. This is the problem that may eventually drive me away, but I promise not to use admin superpowers on the latter offenders. I think a "uniform" would make me more patient rather than less, but I will resign peacefully if people don't like what I'm doing.