Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/PedanticallySpeaking 2

PedanticallySpeaking
final (33/5/4) ending 18:43 16 December 2004 (UTC)

In September I asked Deb to nominate me and she did. However, because of the opposition to my candidacy, I asked it be withdrawn, and it was. (The debate can be seen at Requests for adminship/PedanticallySpeaking.) I have been contributing for four months now on a variety of topics--see both my user page and User:PedanticallySpeaking/Articles for what I've been working on--particularly politics and pop culture. I have tried to contribute when I could to the Reference Desk and have set up an archive of my contributions to it here. I am also a candidate in the on-going Arbitration Committee elections and have been blissfully uninvolved in edit wars or conflicts. According to Kate's tools, I have 4728 edits and by the last ranking of contributors (November 29th), I was 305th. Please vote early, vote often (as they say in Chicago) and vote for PS. Ave atque vale! PedanticallySpeaking 18:45, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * I've been away for several days and I apologize for not sooner answering the criticism below. Thank you, Andrevan, for copying my previous response to criticisms about frequent edits. As I said in withdrawing my prior candidacy, I work at a terminal in the public library.  As Word or Notepad or various other programs are not available here for me to compose on and copy over to Wikipedia, I must compose on Wikipedia, saving as I go.  So, yes, some articles have a very long string of consecutive edits.  The real question should be not about how many edits it took, but whether the articles themself are any good.  And so far, I've yet to see any criticism about the substance of my writing but only the process.  (On this very page's history, there will be a string of my edits because several times I've got an error message and what I typed was lost.  So I save a lot for good reason, not ignorance or the other reasons cited.) Secondly, so what if I keep track of my edits?  If I knew the opposite of "Qui bono?" I'd ask it, but I'll put it in English:  What's the harm there? Third, one critic complains about my User:PedanticallySpeaking/Articles page.  One, it makes it simple for others to see where my interests lie.  Two, I like to keep track of what I've written  and the Special:Contributions page is not well suited for this.  Three, having a list of what I've worked on makes it easy to see if anyone else has been working on those articles by clicking on "related changes".  Finally, I did indeed send messages to a number of people about my candidacy.  Each and every one of the people I sent notes to had either voted in the previous candidacy or I had communicated with before.  On my User:PedanticallySpeaking/Wiki page I have an address book of people I've dealt with and so I solicited my friends, just as every candidate for any office does.  Isn't that how elections work?  Or am I supposed to sit back and just hope someone stumbles across my candicacy?  Ave atque vale!  PedanticallySpeaking 17:08, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) The opposition last time, including my own, was almost entirely of the "come back later" variety. It's later. --Michael Snow 19:32, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. But who's this Atque Vale person, and why do you keep on telling him to go away? - RedWordSmith 19:48, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) I voted oppose last time, but now I recognize the username and associate it with positive contributions to Wikipedia. As such, I support.  Acegikmo1 19:50, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Absolutely. I wanted to support last time, too, but felt that the nomination came too early.  It has been plenty of time, and I enthusiastically support the nomination.  Geogre 19:54, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) I'm proud to strongly support him for adminship. -- ClockworkSoul 20:26, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) Andre ( talk )A| 21:06, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. PRiis 21:45, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) Cribcage 21:56, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) * User:Cribcage seems to be a voting sock puppet. I normally would not say that directly, but their contribs are something special, and a bit obvious. -- Netoholic @ 22:54, 2004 Dec 9 (UTC)
 * 10) **I've addressed your nonsense above, in Guanaco's vote. It's notable that, of all my votes, you've pointedly challenged only these two instances where you were personally opposed. That aside: If you have concerns, you're free to request the intervention of a bureaucrat, or to open an RfC. In the meantime, stop your childish attacks and focus on the merits of the candidates. Cribcage 02:15, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. Dralwik 22:38, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 12) Support. jengod 23:15, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * 13) Support. ffirehorse 01:19, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 14) Agree with Michael Snow. Great nomination, I support! --Lst27 ( t a l k )  01:24, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 15) Support. BTW, please try to update the tally when you vote -_-. ugen64 01:25, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 16) Support. Especially given the conduct of those opposing. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 01:26, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * 17) Didn't this go through last time? *blink* -- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:38, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)
 * 18) I see no reason PS can't be trusted with adminship (which last I checked is still supposedly no big deal). older &ne; wiser 02:41, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * I, also, opposed last time (time on project), but now vote Support. Continued positive contributions, without conflict.  More caretaker activites would have been a plus but are not a requirement.  I see no reason not to trust PS with adminship.  SWAdair | Talk  04:01, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) It's later. &#8212;No-One Jones 06:16, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. &mdash; DV 10:05, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) You don't seem to need my support this time, but I give it freely in any case. Deb 14:58, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Support, and Ave. func (talk)  03:40, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) *gasp* You're NOT an admin? Johnleemk | Talk 12:17, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. Dmn[[European Union| / &#1332;&#1396;&#1398; ]] 23:00, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam. Oh, and support strongly. Rdsmith4&mdash; Dan | Talk 02:17, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Eh, why not. As I said last time (with my neutral [or was it oppose?] vote), anyone who uses Latin that much can't be bad. Alea iacta est. --Golbez 07:01, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Support, even with multiple edits he's a good contributor. Lou I 07:20, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Absolutely. Skyler1534 13:26, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) I know it's cliched, but I thought he already was one.  Pakaran (ark a pan) 15:45, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Sietse 17:09, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Support.    – Ram-Man (comment) (talk)   17:38, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) Insert shock and surprise clichè of choice. Extra credit if it's in Latin!  This rant means support, by the way. - Lucky 6.9 21:30, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) Seems like a good user.  Support. Páll 02:45, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) &#8475; yan!  |  Talk  05:39, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) See below. -- Netoholic @ 20:29, 2004 Dec 9 (UTC)
 * 2) Agree with Netoholic. The way he tracks his own edit count on his user page leads me to believe that he deliberately fails to use the preview button in order to boost his "ranking", as if he could win a prize for that. Gzornenplatz 21:13, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) See comments below.  CryptoDerk 21:49, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. I do not feel that having the stated intention of using admin powers to guard pages you have worked on is anything I can support. I also feel that if you nominate yourself for a position, you should have the good sense to do so at a time when you will be able to monitor the process. Dr Zen 01:28, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. - BSveen 08:58, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

Neutral Comments
 * 1) User:Netoholic's comment below gives me enough concern to not vote yes, but not enough to vote no.  I'd like to hear a response from PedanticallySpeaking first. Response heard.  Changing vote to Support.    – Ram-Man (comment) (talk)   20:41, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Agree with Ram-Man. BLANKFAZE  | (&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;??) 22:20, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Answers to the usual questions seem to be missing from old RfA. Could PS please answer them? In particular, what does he want to do with his superpowers? Silence is its own answer.Dr Zen 04:45, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Pedant I do not in any way oppose this nomination. I accept his/her explanation of the frequent edits, I've had similar difficulties on my own computer. The save early/save often mantra is one I myself use when I edit on a system with less resources.  However, I would like to see this editor performing more 'chores' such as watching for vandalism, cross-referencing, etc. I think that this editor would not abuse sysop priveleges, but I'd like to see admin candidates do more of the grunt work as well.  A possible question I might ask is "Do you feel hampered by your lack of  admin powers, or do you just desire recognition of your value to the community?"  If it is the latter, let me say that your edits certainly seem appropriate and valuable.  I hope that you use your new powers to do more of what I consider admin chores. Pedant 19:06, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)
 * User's edits (still) seem to come in runs of multiple minor edits, and over 15% (736/4773) of his contribs in his user space. In one example, user made 50 edits to Mary Beth Peil in the span of an hour on Sep 2, but there are plenty of others. Can't support someone with little knowledge of the "Show preview" button - it indicates someone who may take action without completely thinking through. I also worry that this user tracks their own edits and contributions so closely (231 edits of User:PedanticallySpeaking/Articles alone) and then goes fishing for votes on 20-30 user pages, as he did on Dec 9 right after posting RfA.  Seems too eager, and should wait a while until someone else nominates him. -- Netoholic @ 20:46, 2004 Dec 9 (UTC)


 * He responded to the former allegation in his first RfA:
 * Some have noted adversely the frequent edits I do to articles, e.g. Mary Beth Peil, John W. Griffin, Dana Gioia. Rather than being a deliberate effort to inflate my count or that I don't know about the preview button, it is because I work at a public terminal in the library. These computers do not like the Wikipedia site for some reason and frequently crash when I use it. Therefore, I save very frequently so I do not lose data. Further, the browser here is hostile to multiple windows being open. So when researching, I save, go to a source, go back to add a fact to an article, save, go back to the source, and so on. Finally, the frequent saves tell me precisely what I added and when.
 * As for the graf on my page about my edits, I saw another user had a count and dates of his landmark edits (50th, 100th, etc.). I thought this was a neat idea and posted it as much for my own reference as bragging. As it causes offense, I have removed it to the bottom of my page.
 * Andre ( talk )A| 21:06, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)


 * Previously I voted to oppose and said he's a good contributor. After an RFA I wipe the slate clean.  He's still a good contributor though I seriously find myself asking WHY PedanticallySpeaking needs the tools of adminship.  Looking through a few thousand edits since September I can't find where he has actively participated in vandal fighting, VFD, etc. and other common reasons that people request adminship.  In both his prior RFA and this one he hasn't explained why he wants to be an admin.  Furthermore, if (after this comment) he says that he wants adminship powers to do the things I mentioned, then I say where's the experience?  Anyway, if PS can come up with a good explanation I might be swayed to vote otherwise.  CryptoDerk 21:49, Dec 9, 2004 (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 intend to keep an eye on the articles I've done work on (it's here), as I have been doing, for bad information and vandalism.  Fortunately I've had to do little of this as I patrol a quiet beat in dull boring areas that nobody else seems to waste their time vandalising.  (Not that I'm complaining . . . .)
 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. I have a list of articles here, which are all articles I either wrote from scratch or almost so in the case of Webster's Dictionary.  Webster's Dictionary, MSEHPA, Dawson's Creek and Katie Holmes are four that I drew heavily from my own commonplace books to write.  Dana Gioia, Mary Beth Peil, and John W. Griffin are all products chiefly of research on-line.  I am pleased with them because of their substance and the research I did.
 * 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. Aside from a couple of edit conflicts from bumping into someone else, I have not been involved in any conflicts or edit wars.  My chief source of irritation hasn't been with other users, but rather with the computers, at both ends.  These don't like Wikipedia and lately, including today, Wikipedia seems really slow.  Not much one can do, alas.