Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BRG


 * ''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

BRG
final (5/13/3) ending 22:00, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

BRG became a logged-in user in May 2003 and has made over 5000 edits since then. His previous contributions as an IP were also extensive, totalling some thousands and extending back to the pioneer days of the project. He makes organizational edits -- links, redirects, normalization of titles, as well as contributing to Chemistry and several other topics. I have BRG's permission to make this nomination. (Proposed by The Uninvited Co., Inc.)


 * I hereby accept the nomination. -- BRG

Support


 * Lst27 ( t a l k )  23:50, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * -- Grunt 🇪🇺 02:07, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)
 * 1) Andre ( talk )A| 03:50, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) - Amgine 05:57, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) - Specifically considering administrators' rights and responsibilities, I cannot see how the Ceqli question is relevant at all; all the more so in view of the dubious vote counting that first led to the deletion of that page. - Ar 17:53, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)
 * 4) I don't find the Ceqli business to be particuarly troublesome. I believe what BRG was getting at is that whenever we create an article, we're in fact "promoting" that subject. Since we tend to create articles we know about, we tend to promote what's important to us by simply editing. I see no problem with holding that view, it seems logical to me. Shane King 06:51, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Agree with Ar and Shane King. ugen64 21:54, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) BRG has used Wikipedia for the promotion of Ceqli, a minor conlang. Leaving aside the question of the notability of Ceqli, promotion of any kind is quite inappropriate for an administrator. For reference: some of my remarks  and some of his  concerning Ceqli. -- Wile E. Heresiarch 15:01, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Geogre 15:57, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC) Unfortunately, the "there is no rule against promoting things" argument for promoting causes worries me. I usually don't care if someone utters a dirty word or gets frustrated, but the more dangerous thing, to me, is the belief that a real life cause must be supported and fought in our pages.  Geogre 15:57, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Why does that Ceqli link look blue to me? Don't tell me it got through VfU. Oppose, and relist Ceqli on VfD if that's what it takes. Everyking 06:20, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) The Ceqli business is troubling, and he seems rather ambivalent about becoming an admin. Mackensen (talk) 21:11, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 21:45, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) I too find the whole affair with Ceqli an unsettling reflexion on how this user will operate as an admin.  &rarr;I&ntilde;g&oacute;lemo&larr;   (talk)  06:45, 2004 Nov 20 (UTC)
 * 7) Too interested in promoting his own agenda. RickK 07:43, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) /Tuomas 15:05, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) I wasn't aware of this Ceqli business. Oppose. --Lst27  ( t a l k )  03:11, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) Candidate attributes opposition to him to a "cabal". We don't need paranoid administrators. Gdr 21:57, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)
 * 11) No. No, no, no. No. Ambi 02:28, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 12) Anyone who honestly and sincerely thinks a cabal exists does not need to be an administrator. Also see Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. --Slowking Man 07:38, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * 13) Cribcage 05:06, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:16, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC).  I was unaware of the Ceqli matter and upon reviewing it, find it troubling, and am withdrawing my support.
 * 2) Agree with UC. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 23:29, 2004 Nov 20 (UTC)
 * 3) Agree with UC. -- user:zanimum

Comments

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. This is something that I cannot, at present, answer. I do have limited time for Wikipedia, and cannot be sure what I can fit in.
 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. I added a number of articles on important chemists, such as Harry Kroto, John Pople, Rudolph Pariser, etc. who I felt ought to be better known. One of my first contributions was a correction of a mixed-up statement about acid-base theory, though I've since branched out to other subjects outside of chemistry. (I do have a Ph. D. in that subject, so I have specific expertise there.
 * 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. There have been a few; mostly because I've had some disagreements over the proper way to handle some disambiguations. Eventually I had to back down because of lsack of support for my position.

Obviously, my activities in the dispute over Ceqli seem to be the sticking point here, to the extent that even my original sponsor retracted his support. I feel it is important that I summarize my view of what was involved, so that people who disagree with me will vote against me if they feel that strongly about it, but people who agree with what I was trying to do will be on my side.
 * Statement of position

It seems strange to me that, in a Wikipedia with roughly 400,000 articles, there is even a controversy as to whether an article on Ceqli is justified. It would appear that a cabal of opposition to anything about conlangs is involved here. Wile E. Heresiarch characterizes Ceqli as a "minor conlang" -- I think the question of its importance should be left to the people involved in the conlang community. On the newsgroup "alt.language.artificial" and in the auxlang mailing group (both of which I frequent) nobody thinks Ceqli is too minor to consider in an encyclopedia article; the only opposition to having Ceqli on Wikipedia stems from the position that Wikipedia is a dilettantist endeavor. In a Wikipedia that tries to present a NPOV even on such truly controversial issues as Israel/Palestine, gun control/gun rights, abortion, homosexuality, etc., to adopt a position hostile to artificial languages in general is outside the Wikipedia spirit.

Two arguments have been raised against the inclusion of the article; one that Ceqli is not important enough to include, the second that the article is something akin to an advertising venture. I hope I have disposed of the first in my previous comment. Of the second, I challenge anyone to read the article and point to where it is; it is a description of the language intended to fulfill Wikipedia's role of imparting knowledge.

Let me make something clear. I stand to gain nothing, either in money or in recognition, by having this article there. Rex May, to my knowledge, gains nothing monetarily, but does gain some recognition, and I think deservedly so for designing a language on new principles. I happen, for the information of anyone who reads this statement, to have no liking for Ceqli as a language; I believe, however, that for the conlang-designing community it is useful to know about what people have done before. As a result, I invited Rex May to write the article; I never expected that anyone would challenge the right of someone to do so.

There seems to be some difficulty resulting from my use of the word "promote." I may be using the word differently from my opponents here. I believe that every single article out of the nearly 400,000 in Wikipedia involves an element of promotion. The creation of a Wikipedia article entails a decision on someone's part that the subject matter of the article is worthy of making known to an audience of Wikipedia readers, and therefore it is a promotional effort in my sense.

A statement was made in the original VfD discussion on Ceqli that it's not worthy of an article because nobody speaks it. Well, let me go to another example that I consider relevant. There are articles on voting systems that discribe many different systems. Many of these are only theoretical systems that never have been used in a real election. Yet everyone (including myself) agrees that they have theoretical interest to people designing a new voting system. Ceqli, in my estimation, is of similar theoretical interest for conlang construction.

Now to RickK's comment that I am "Too interested in promoting [my] own agenda." My agenda is to make Wikipedia inclusive enough that it will appeal to the vast variety of people looking for information. If this is not the agenda of the majority of Wikipedians, then vote against me. Otherwise, please vote in favor. -- BRG 14:46, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.