User:Exploding Boy (22/3/1) ends 04:37, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Contributor has been here since early January and has made many substantial contributions. He is already keeping a keen eye out for vandalism and other violations of Wikipedia policy. I think he'd make a great admin. Moncrief 04:39, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)

thanks for the nomination Exploding Boy 08:58, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. In my experience with Exploding boy, he has not only shown himself to be a good contributor but quite reasonable as well. →Raul654 04:58, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)
   • PS - I still think that if you looked up unintional humor in a dictionary, you'd find this edit of his
2. NEWCOMER RIGHTS! - W oodrow. 05:04, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
3. Meelar 05:05, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
4. Tuf-Kat 18:58, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)
5. A keen contributor who seems communicative and collected. -- Hadal 05:59, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
6. I have agreed w him, and disagreed w him, but I have never found him to be anything other than polite and reasonable, definitely not one to lose his cool, or be other than polite. Sam Spade 06:06, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
7. Nanshu 00:34, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
8. theresa knott 01:14, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
9. Support. RADICALBENDER ★ 12:48, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
10. Finlay McWalter | Talk 13:28, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
11. Ambivalenthysteria 13:34, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
12. Warofdreams 16:30, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
13. I think it is a good thing for there to be some admins who are willing to take risks. The best growth happens at the edges, where risk is taken. - UtherSRG 16:40, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
14. As a father who has problems bringing up children in the era of MTV and Nickelodeon (yes, Nickelodeon) I have some problems with some of the material EB writes and edits being in an openly-available web encyclopedia; i.e., I wish there could be a separate section. However, I've reviewed EB's material, in terms of the usefulness, quality and fairness of his work, so I am disinclined to throw out the baby with the bathwater, as it were, and therefore Support. Cecropia 18:58, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
15. -- OldakQuill 00:45, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
16. Support. Inasmuch as we have a longstanding policy of permitting and even encouraging articles such as fuck, felching, and the photographically illustrated article clitoris, it seems unwise to penalize this user for largely similar material at Finger fucking or especially the relatively tame, fact-based entry at Collar (BDSM). If we do not wish to have such articles, let us develop a policy prohibiting them before we act against their creators. UninvitedCompany 03:05, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
17. Eloquence * 06:45, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)
18. All encyclopedic information should be in Wikipedia, not just the information that's safe for little kids and revivalist missionaries. Support for adminship. Philwelch 08:07, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
19. Secretlondon 12:40, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
20. 1) I've seen good things from EB, and 2) any candidate who can unite the various corners of this site's political spectrum as seen in the votes above is obviously a good choice. Jwrosenzweig 15:53, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
21. Has shown he can work with others even on controversial subjects. —Morven 18:38, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
22. Danny 03:48, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
23. Tannin 14:27, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Exploding Boy is creating innapropriate articles like Finger fucking and Collar (BDSM). Radical WiKi 13:13, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
   • This user objects to two articles I created, specifically Finger fucking and Collar (BDSM). He (or she? Sorry, I'm assuming the user is a man) has listed both for deletion (and I would note that at least one user supports keeping Finger fucking), has also attempted to create a Quickpoll, and has left a message on my talk page. I appreciate his zeal, but I'm afraid that he may be a little misinformed. The article Collar (BDSM) was an unedited link on List of sexology topics. I simply started the article with what little I know. As I mention on the VfD page, there's a lot more to collars in BDSM than just fashion. By all accounts there are millions of people who take this stuff very seriously, and it's been around for a long time. Collars in particular have a venerable history in BDSM. I created the article on Finger fucking after editing Finger condom. I realize it's not a pretty name, but as I wrote on the VfD page, it's both a well-known term and a common practice, and there's a precedent for article titles containing the word "fuck." Neither article is pornographic, either in intent or content. Both articles follow the general style and tone of the other articles in List of sexology topics. I would also add that Radical WiKi appears to be a brand new user (his list of contributions starts on April 7, 2004 and the very first one is a VfD on the article Collar (BDSM)), and has left messages on the talk pages of all of the above supporters (up to RadicalBender, so far) urging them to stop supporting my nomination. Not only that, but he has also listed me for making "dirty pornographic articles" on Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Quite frankly I'm amazed at how many different things this user has done in such a short time! Exploding Boy 13:29, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)
     • That person also posted a note on my talk page (and all of the other people supporting explodingboy) asking us to withdraw our support. If we were to judge him by the enemies he's made, I'd say explodingboy sounds like a pretty good choice. →Raul654 16:32, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)
     • PS - for the record, Radical WiKi is a new user and (I'd venture) a sockpuppet. Thus, according to the poll recently conducted, buearacrats can pretty much ignore his objection. →Raul654 16:44, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)
       • IMO the 'finger fucking' article was a poor choice for a title (I have voted as such}, and EB does have a bias towards paraphilia. On the other hand EVERYONE is biased, and I have never known EB to behave rudely, not be unable to accept the possibility that his edits, additions etc... might be innapropriate, which is the main prob I have w quality editors on the wiki, is that despite making 9 good edits for every 1 bad, many refuse to accept the possibility that they could ever make a bad edit, and immediately assume bad faith. EB does not do this to my knowledge, but rather keeps his cool, goes to the talk page, and works things out as best he can. This shows me that he will make an excellent admin. If somebody has an objection regarding behaviours that would relate to him being an admin, that could be persuasive. But if we are to exclude him due to his 'perversions', even I as an intensely spiritual person find that to be an ad hominem, poorly suited to judging his abilities to block pages, etc... Sam Spade 22:19, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
   • It must be John Ashcroft. :) Seriously though, I'm perhaps one of the less prurient people here and I don't see what the big deal with the articles are. I'd point out other examples of other articles, but I don't want to give this person additional ideas for going on a rampage. RADICALBENDER ★ 14:20, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
2. Pollinator 14:11, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

   Mkweise Seems to have been party to a bit too many disputes for my taste. (Note this is not a judgement as to right or wrong, but admin powers should never be used by involved parties.)

   • Just a few comments on disputes. I've been involved in "disputes" with a single, by all accounts problem user on the Wiki who has frequently been accused of unreasonable reverting and POV editing (I've had "disagreements" with other users too, but none that have become disputes). These disputes, or rather, dispute (since it was with the same user spanning a series of pages on the same general topic) resulted in a lot of heated discussion on various talk pages. After a while I just decided to take a break from editing those pages. The point is, there is no present or future admin who is safe from ever being involved in a dispute, but part of what makes someone a good admin is the willingness to use her or his powers only for good. A bad admin, I think, would be one who took advantage of his or her position to gain the edge in a personal dispute. In fact, I doubt that would be much of a problem anyway, since news travels quite fast on Wiki, and the admin would be called on it PDQ. If, as an admin, I were personally involved in a dispute with another user, it would be in my own interest to consult another admin before taking action. Exploding Boy 22:39, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)
     • Good answer. Mkweise 22:43, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Given the recent ability to create controversy, I say delay a decision. De-list for no and reconsider in a month or two when we should all have a clearer idea of EB's merits. Tannin 04:05, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC) I am impressed by EB's clear, rational and very sensible response (immediately below this) - impressed enough to change my vote. Tannin 14:27, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

*I would like to respond to this comment partly for myself obviously, and partly because I feel that its implications are important for Wikipedia as a whole. There has been a lot of talk about the supposedly controversial articles I write and edit, and it's true, many of them are about controversial topics (such as same-sex marriage) or topics that make some people uncomfortable (various topics on sex and sexuality). But writing on and editing controversial topics should not be used as a yardstick in evaluating a user unless those topics violate Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or constitute obvious mischief. I have never vandalised Wikipedia or deliberately or even -- to the best of my knowledge -- accidentally violated any of its standards and policies. There were precedents for both the title and content of Finger fucking (see Fuck, Anal sex, Masturbation, Felching among many, many others). "Controversy" such as this, which creates a framework for discussion on Wikipedia and about Wikipedia's standards and policies, is a good thing. The "controversy" over some of the articles on sexuality, for example (see Homosexuality, Heterosexuality, Heteronormativity among many others), has led to an initiative to create a series of guidelines for writing about similar topics (please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology). This recent "controversy" might have resulted in a resolution to ban certain words in article titles but there has been no move in that direction, and in fact there is wide-spread support both for keeping the article and for keeping the current name. But what concerns me is that I have found myself, over the last few days, avoiding working on pages that desperately need it because of the implied accusation in such statements about "controversy." When users become nervous about working on certain topics for fear of reprisal (in this case because it might influence this vote) it is a bad thing for Wikipedia, both as a community and as an encyclopaedia, and believe me, there are sex-related articles out there that are begging for help. I have decided, vote or no vote and whether I become an admin or not, that I'm going to continue working on such articles because, as I've stated elsewhere, the topics that make us uncomfortable are just as valid for inclusion in an encyclopaedia as those that do not, and quite often what makes us the most uncomfortable is the way an article is written (this is a particular problem with the sexology topics which is partly why I work on them). Having said all that, a user's suitability for adminship is dependent on his or her ability to deal with disputes and controversy sensibly and constructively. So far no one's suggested that I am unable or unwilling to do so in the future, or that I have not done so in the past. I think most users would agree that I'm more than willing to discuss things at great length to reach a happy compromise. In fact, if you check my contributions you'll find that some months ago when I was involved in a minor dispute I was perhaps too cautious in dealing with a user whose edits and reverts are frequently the subject of a great deal controversy. Having said all that, I would like, since all this has made it seem like I only or mostly write and edit articles on kinky and/or disturbing topics, to direct your attention to several articles of which I'm particularly proud. These articles are largely written by me, and you'll note that some of them are so uncontroversial they don't even have talk pages. They are, in varying stages of completeness and in no particular order (except the first one, which is the article that led me to become a regular contributor here): The Japanese Tea Ceremony, Stroke Order (of Chinese characters), Shodo (Japanese calligraphy), The Sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway, Irezumi (traditional Japanese tattooing) and, lest anyone accuse me of being too Japan-centric, The Harry Potter in Translation Series. Exploding Boy 14:11, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I like Exploding Boy (love his name), but I think he needs to be here for a while more. RickK | Talk 04:43, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)