Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Beland

Beland
[ Vote here] (58/0/0) ending 00:50 4 September 2005 (UTC) - Okay, this one may be a little early, but we'll see how it goes. He only has ~11,500 edits and he's only been here since July, 2004. But, all joking aside, I think Beland's one of our best janitors and (fellow) Wikignomes. On a given day, the name Beland probably shows up on your watchlist, as it does mine, all the time. He also runs the User:Pearle bot, helping with CFD and other stuff too. This guy's due. --Dmcdevit·t 00:50, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * closed Uncle Ed 00:05, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept. -- Beland 20:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Support! Yay! Dmcdevit·t 00:54, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Uber-janitor. Maurreen (talk) 01:02, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, definitely. Andre ( talk ) 01:05, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. How on Earth did it take this long to get around to doing this?? -Splash 01:12, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support, definitely. Should have been in a while ago. Sarge Baldy 01:17, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. I can't believe we've overlooked him for this long. Rje 01:19, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Merovingian (t) (c) 02:16, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Support no doubt!  &infin; Who ? &iquest; ?  03:00, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Support - Guettarda 06:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. You mean he isn't already? --Carnildo 06:18, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Please use the recent donations to buy a time machine and make him an admin per last month. I had no idea he wasn't one and would have immediately nominated him if I had known that. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 07:51, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Good grief.— Encephalon |  &zeta;   08:24:15, 2005-08-28 (UTC)
 * Aw, I suppose so. Might just pass muster as an admin. ;) Beland is an A-grade top-quality wikipedian - I guess we'd all thought he already was an admin. Grutness...  wha?  08:31, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - even without waiting for acceptance and his answers to the questions! Stewart Adcock 09:08, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) --Sn0wflake 13:15, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Will Support after 12,000 edits and 14 months time in service. ;-) Func( t, c, @,) 16:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support, absolutely. Not administrator yet? &mdash; Stevey7788 (talk) 18:34, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Dragons flight 22:56, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Unconditional support - I would have nominated him if he'd put a * by his name on this list. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:24, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Strongest possible support. A finely tuned Wiki-chine, this one is. -- BD2412 talk 00:36, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. Surprised Beland is not an admin yet. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Grant him the golden mop. Denelson83 03:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. Should have been one before: lots of useful work, and I really, really like his answer to Question #3. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 07:01, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. Excellent contributor in many ways. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Support  =Nichalp   «Talk»=  07:34, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Support. El_C 08:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Support. --Doc (?) 09:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Support. --Kbdank71 15:20, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) Support -- Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 15:21, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) Support. If there's a shortage of mops he can have mine for a bit; he deserves it!  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:26, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) Support. I thought he was already etc etc. JFW | T@lk  21:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) Support. I do not always agree with the actions that Beland sometimes takes, and we have indirectly clashed in the past. However, Beland is also a tireless contributor to the project, and I recognize his abilities and effort as valuable and meaningful. That's enough for me to support him. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 21:21, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * 20) Support Briangotts (talk) 21:43, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 21) Support Thought he was one. Bratsche talk  5 pillars 22:20, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * 22) Support. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 01:45, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 23) Support.  ral  315  05:27, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * 24) Support per the Comment section below.  Acetic Acid  ( talk  ) 13:35, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * 25)   Journalist  C./ Holla @ me! 
 * Yep, Support. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 19:40, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. Should have happened a long time ago. --Allen3 talk 21:07, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Dang! Support by all means. Fire Star 21:55, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support absolutely. Hall Monitor 22:15, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Oh Yeaahh! the wub  "?/!"  16:02, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) That's hot. Mike H (Talking is hot) 16:07, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Support with no reservations. Hamster Sandwich 16:51, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. +sj  +  17:55, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 05:09, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Wow.— Encephalon |  &zeta;   06:17:14, 2005-09-01 (UTC)
 * Wow indeed; isn't this the first time? ah, and Support Lectonar 09:29, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * He actually supports a lot of people. Acetic  ' Acid  09:59, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Support: --Bhadani 14:41, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --Cyberjunkie | Talk 17:00, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. My pleasure. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:37, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Saluyot 00:45, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. siafu 00:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. Almost should have skipped Admin and went straight to Bureaucrat with this one.   Un  focused  19:52, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Support without reservations. Hall Monitor 20:10, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Support - obvious. Enjoy it. JesseW, the juggling janitor 22:49, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Support - Alright, Beland! I'm now voting Support for you since Joolzer and others, such as RobChurch, who said I was being a dick and trying to make a point, and trying to buy my vote off of me, they've finally won! I'm virtually being forced to support you! So here's another support. You're the man! WikiFan04Talk 17:56, 2 Sep 2005 (CDT)
 * 10) BRIAN 0918  &bull; 2005-09-3 04:00
 * 11) Support. Long overdue. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:10, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. I don't see you very much around Wikipedia. --WikiFan04Talk 00:14, 30 Aug 2005 (CDT)

Neutral

Comments
 * All together now: "I thought he already was one!"
 * All together now: "Let's force people to vote YES to Beland!"


 *  Oppose. I don't see you very much around Wikipedia. --WikiFan04Talk 00:14, 30 Aug 2005 (CDT)
 * Your vote is respected, but really, is that a valid reason to oppose someone? You've never seen them very much? What happened to looking at a person's contributions etc.  Journalist C./ Holla @ me! 
 * It's a very valid reason. People were opposing me because of that very same reason, or "not talking with the community". --WikiFan04Talk 19:22, 30 Aug 2005 (CDT)
 * Generally, I have a personal policy to only support users on RfA I've had some positive interaction with, or have seen on articles or RC working in a positive (or at least effective) light. I make exceptions, however, based on a user's record, and this user is one of those exceptions. I wouldn't oppose, though, based simply on unfamiliarity. Fire Star 01:09, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, I find that seeing unknown names on RfA usually means *I* haven't been editing enough lately (or more likely, slacking on RC patrol). ;)  --Alan Au 22:53, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * There is a very substantial difference between you not having interacted with this editor up to this point - probably due to the fact that both of you work on different areas of expertise - and lack of interaction between editors and the community in general. If the candidate for adminship has not carried several conversations with other editors, it becomes very hard to evaluate him/her as a person, and not merely as an article writer. Since admins have to deal directly with people, and worse, with vandals, it is not wise to Support the nomination of a candidate who cannot/will refuse to carry a conversation with other editors, or whom has not done enough of that. --Sn0wflake 01:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Unresponsiveness is a definite problem. A history of deliberate stonewalling would be a reason to oppose. Fire Star 04:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * And, just to be clear, I assume you're speaking in general and not accusing Beland of this sort of misbehavior (right?). -- Rick Block (talk) 17:43, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * You are correct. My support for Beland is unchanged. I was responding to Sn0wflake who I assume has had experience with a different user up for admin who was unresposive to some questions. Fire Star 04:34, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I think that not having heard of an editor at all can in some cases be symptomatic of possible problems. Wikipedia's a huge place, but if one has been around for a while and hasn't run into an editor at the Village Pump, VfD, policy discussions, etc., that might indicate that that editor might not have sufficiently broad interests.  Having said that, I think that opposing all nominations for that reason alone borders on bad faith, especially for editors who do seem to have sufficiently broad scope in editing.  JYolkowski // talk 01:52, 2 September 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. I often deal with batch jobs and category renaming and deletion. This often turns up articles or categories that need to be unprotected or deleted.  Having admin powers would certainly help getting these cleaned up.   I don't really go on vandal patrol, but if I happen to come across any situations where blocks or page protection are warranted, I may implement the appropriate policy. -- Beland 20:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?


 * A. There are a few listed at User:Beland, most of those being pictures of San Francisco, but there are also a few articles I've nearly or completely re-written. A lot of my work is on Wikipedia: pages and category membership.  I do offline analysis of database dumps to produce new or update existing problem reports, which seem to be helpful for editors to make systematic repairs to the site.  I like to think that having clean coordination pages helps lots of editors be more productive, and that it makes the site look more inhabited, if not more credible.


 * And of course there's Pearle, the bot which has made category cleanup a lot easier - there's even a clone. Playing with bots is fun (because I like programming small, useful projects), interesting from a research point of view, and nifty because it multiplies the amount of useful work that I and other editors can do. -- Beland 20:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


 * 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 how will you deal with it in the future?
 * A. Oh, sure. You can't edit articles on Wikipedia for as long as I have without running into people who have a radically different view of the world than you do, and with whom you may initially disagree about what an article should say.  A few things I've learned about forming consensus, both before and during my time on Wikipedia: 1.) Keep the discussion focused on the task at hand.  Don't try to reach consensus on how the world should be, or even why the article should be one way or the other.  All you have to do is agree on what words to write.  2.) Most people find it difficult to argue with you if you are being polite and giving them the benefit of the doubt.  So I try to do so even when I might be privately yelling at my screen.  It prevents them from getting too upset to have a civil conversation, and it saves face if it turns out they were right and I was wrong. If they are being gruff or offensive, just ignore that and discuss article content instead.  3.) Do research.  Sometimes it's easy to convince people that they are wrong if you present some reliable evidence from outside sources.  Sometimes in the process of gathering it, you realize that you yourself are wrong, or that something more complicated is going on, which makes you both right or both wrong.  4.) Get outside opinions.  Filing a request that other editors comment on the dispute can be quite helpful.  5.)  Just walk away.  Sometimes a dispute exceeds the time or expertise I have to devote to it.  So I just make sure my greivance is noted on the talk page, that the article is appropriately tagged, if necessary, and leave it until later.  There are so many things I'm working with on the site, there's no point in getting stuck on just one thing.  6.) Disengage from people who make persistent personal attacks.  I'm not getting paid enough to put up with that sort of thing.  Fortunately, it's hardly ever a problem.


 * Given how many articles Pearle touches, a lot of people have complaints about her. When she's running, I actively monitor her talk page, and try to resolve any complaints before starting a new run.  Some complaints are about the substance of what Pearle is doing.  Usually this just means I have to point the person at the community decision which Pearle is implementing, of which they were unaware.  Occasionally we discover the original decision was unwise, or ambiguous, resulting in my implementation not aligning with what someone was expecting.  Some complaints are about the operational details, which are split between the "oh, you found a bug", and "no, it's supposed to do that" variety.  I do feel obligated to clean up any messes that Pearle makes, whether by reprogramming her or reverting her edits manually (which can be rather tedious, depending on how far she's gotten before someone notices something has gone wrong).  Once my personal account was blocked as a side-effect of blocking Pearle (because they come from the same IP address).  That was really annoying, but all I could do was send a polite e-mail explaining that she was, in fact, authorized to be doing what she had been doing, even though I hadn't gotten around to adding that to her home page from Wikipedia talk:Bots.  But I suppose misunderstandings are inevitable when you do something that thousands of people can see. -- Beland 20:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Wow, thank you all for your support. -- Beland 19:30, 4 September 2005 (UTC)