Joke137 (
talk·contribs) – Joke137 is a subject matter expert in physics and cosmology and has been producing a steady stream of quality edits since he joined Wikipedia nearly a year ago. In my interactions and observations of him, I have found him to be a model of civility and good sense, despite being crazy enough to devote some of his time to ensure that fringe theories (e.g.
Plasma cosmology and
Tired light) remain sensible and fair. In my opinion, we need to promote more users, like Joke137, that combine both deep technical expertise and an ability to work well with others.
Dragons flight23:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Support. Seems logical, feet on the ground, broad minded, knowledgeable. 1453 edits may not be oodles of experience, but stupid he ain't. The fact that he's been able to resolve disputes renders a low number of project and user talk edits rather moot. If he has more disputes maybe he talks more. :)
Guapovia12:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support Solid, serious editor that understands the principals at work here. An expert in his field who is unlikely to abuse admin tools. A quality editor.
Rx StrangeLove22:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Quality of edits and dialogue more than overrides any numerical concerns, at least for me (good point made below re editcount not reflecting on the effort put in)--
cjllw |
TALK00:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support - Quality outweighs quantity when the quality is this good. Doesn't seem likely to dive in and abuse something he doesn't understand. (
ESkog)(
Talk)02:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support Experience should not be a bar to adminship, which is no big deal. The issue is whether we trust the user in question, and experience does not affect that trust. Experience is something we all lack, and gain daily, and where is the harm in learning as you go? Unless Radiant is suggesting
Joke137 is unlikely to seek advice on how to act, I fail to see how experience should count against.
Hidingtalk14:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support as per
Charles Matthews. At a glance at this page, seems likely to be a good admin who stays focused on the task of keeping the often controversial cosmology articles NPOV and scientifically accurate. Joke's recent stub on
Parameterized post-Newtonian formalism is a good start and I liked the fact that references were provided.---
CH05:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Very Strong Support ~ Looking back and some of his
edits whoa. That's fantastic hard work and dedication. Oddly enough I was pushed to vote by some of the negative comments, please dont equal random vandal-reverting or discussion with quality edits. How much cognition does it take to revert silly edits? Can you really compare that to quality information? Consider which one benefits wikipedia the most, we are here to BUILD an encyclopedia, and J137 is doing just that. —
This user has left wikipedia 08:29
2006-02-02
Comment I don't want to dispute your vote, but I thought this issue might come up so I'll make a brief comment. Although my edit count is lower than many new administrators, I make a lot of large edits such as
[1] which may take an hour or more to prepare. I also make minor edits
[2], but for better or for worse I concentrate more on the former. Wikipedia counts both kinds of edits alike, though, even though one takes much longer than the other! –
Joke14:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the comment. I don't have a problem with your article edits and you are a good editor but I think you need some more edits to the spaces that were mentioned above. I am sure that if you try again for adminship in two months you will have no problem. --
a.n.o.n.y.mt14:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Neural same issue, however, I cannot justify an opposition agasint you becasue I do the exact same thing regarding articles
[3], which is why my
edit count is lower than say, a category lister. However, there's still the issue of lack of talk namespace. -
ZeroTalk03:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Neutral. Enough edits in general, especially considering the quality, but a lack of involvement in Wikipedia internal processes. If this improves somewhat (doubling it wouldn't take particularly long) I would be happy to support.
Prototc12:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Changing vote to neutral. I agree that the quality of edits is more important than the quantity, but I still think Joke needs more experience in project space. --
TantalumTelluride23:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Neutral. I'm on the fence. Total edit counts are enough for me, but like above, I want to see more project space contributions. Your usage of edit summaries is commendable though. --
PS2pcGAMER (
talk)
05:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Neutral, leaning to support, but I have to agree with the need of more project space edits. Most likely this will pass, and I'm happy it will, so I suppose this will serve more as a suggestion for the future than an actual vote. Happy editing! Phædriel ♥ tell me -
21:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Comments
Edit summary usage: 91% for major edits and 93% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces.
Mathbot04:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
A. I see my primary contributions still being the same: trying to expand, verify, reference and integrate the various articles relating to cosmology, to revert vandalism, and trying to reconcile the concerns of the various editors in a reasonable fashion. Sometimes that feels like an infinite reservoir of work. With that said, I've lately been trying to branch out into doing more general editing and working on other articles, which is a welcome break. One thing that interests me is trying to informally mediate NPOV disputes in other fields. One thing that editing the cosmology articles has taught me is that there is often a depth to these disputes that is impossible to resolve without cooler heads lending a hand. I would also start hanging out on the
administrators noticeboard. –
Joke04:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)reply
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
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. The first really problematic edit conflict I can recall being involved in was over the
Cosmology article (see the talk page), where an anonymous editor was accusing me of pursuing a creationist bias. See the
failed RfA. That was more a nuisance than anything. The recent real conflict I have been in was the
plasma cosmology and
Big Bang (see talk archive four) dispute involving, principally,
Reddi and
Eric Lerner. See the relevant talk pages,
Elerner RfC,
Reddi RfC and
Reddi RfA. I've learned some lessons from this. I made
this reversion without an adequate talk page comment, which wasn't too bright, but mainly I regret having let the whole thing get me so wound up I had to take a break. A lot of disputes on Wikipedia – in addition to this, some recent disputes on the
cold fusion page come to mind – aren't well dealt with by bludgeoning people with the
NPOV policy. These problems can only be solved by calm, rational discussion and a genuine search for consensus. –
Joke04:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Incidentally, since I've seen it come up a few times recently on Wikipedia, I'd like to say that I wouldn't ever use administrator powers on an article I am deeply involved with editing, except to deal with simple vandals. –
Joke04:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Not sure really. I suppose there are two reasons. One was an experiment: I was interested to see who would edit it and what they would write. Answer: few and not much. The other reason is that I don't really believe anything about me matters except that I do my best to make quality contributions. I'm not much interested in arguments from authority. It's sort of the ideal science is based on, even if it isn't true in practice. It's true to a much better approximation on Wikipedia, which can be both a blessing and a curse. –
Joke04:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)reply
The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Joke137 (
talk·contribs) – Joke137 is a subject matter expert in physics and cosmology and has been producing a steady stream of quality edits since he joined Wikipedia nearly a year ago. In my interactions and observations of him, I have found him to be a model of civility and good sense, despite being crazy enough to devote some of his time to ensure that fringe theories (e.g.
Plasma cosmology and
Tired light) remain sensible and fair. In my opinion, we need to promote more users, like Joke137, that combine both deep technical expertise and an ability to work well with others.
Dragons flight23:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Support. Seems logical, feet on the ground, broad minded, knowledgeable. 1453 edits may not be oodles of experience, but stupid he ain't. The fact that he's been able to resolve disputes renders a low number of project and user talk edits rather moot. If he has more disputes maybe he talks more. :)
Guapovia12:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support Solid, serious editor that understands the principals at work here. An expert in his field who is unlikely to abuse admin tools. A quality editor.
Rx StrangeLove22:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Quality of edits and dialogue more than overrides any numerical concerns, at least for me (good point made below re editcount not reflecting on the effort put in)--
cjllw |
TALK00:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support - Quality outweighs quantity when the quality is this good. Doesn't seem likely to dive in and abuse something he doesn't understand. (
ESkog)(
Talk)02:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support Experience should not be a bar to adminship, which is no big deal. The issue is whether we trust the user in question, and experience does not affect that trust. Experience is something we all lack, and gain daily, and where is the harm in learning as you go? Unless Radiant is suggesting
Joke137 is unlikely to seek advice on how to act, I fail to see how experience should count against.
Hidingtalk14:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support as per
Charles Matthews. At a glance at this page, seems likely to be a good admin who stays focused on the task of keeping the often controversial cosmology articles NPOV and scientifically accurate. Joke's recent stub on
Parameterized post-Newtonian formalism is a good start and I liked the fact that references were provided.---
CH05:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Very Strong Support ~ Looking back and some of his
edits whoa. That's fantastic hard work and dedication. Oddly enough I was pushed to vote by some of the negative comments, please dont equal random vandal-reverting or discussion with quality edits. How much cognition does it take to revert silly edits? Can you really compare that to quality information? Consider which one benefits wikipedia the most, we are here to BUILD an encyclopedia, and J137 is doing just that. —
This user has left wikipedia 08:29
2006-02-02
Comment I don't want to dispute your vote, but I thought this issue might come up so I'll make a brief comment. Although my edit count is lower than many new administrators, I make a lot of large edits such as
[1] which may take an hour or more to prepare. I also make minor edits
[2], but for better or for worse I concentrate more on the former. Wikipedia counts both kinds of edits alike, though, even though one takes much longer than the other! –
Joke14:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the comment. I don't have a problem with your article edits and you are a good editor but I think you need some more edits to the spaces that were mentioned above. I am sure that if you try again for adminship in two months you will have no problem. --
a.n.o.n.y.mt14:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Neural same issue, however, I cannot justify an opposition agasint you becasue I do the exact same thing regarding articles
[3], which is why my
edit count is lower than say, a category lister. However, there's still the issue of lack of talk namespace. -
ZeroTalk03:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Neutral. Enough edits in general, especially considering the quality, but a lack of involvement in Wikipedia internal processes. If this improves somewhat (doubling it wouldn't take particularly long) I would be happy to support.
Prototc12:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Changing vote to neutral. I agree that the quality of edits is more important than the quantity, but I still think Joke needs more experience in project space. --
TantalumTelluride23:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Neutral. I'm on the fence. Total edit counts are enough for me, but like above, I want to see more project space contributions. Your usage of edit summaries is commendable though. --
PS2pcGAMER (
talk)
05:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Neutral, leaning to support, but I have to agree with the need of more project space edits. Most likely this will pass, and I'm happy it will, so I suppose this will serve more as a suggestion for the future than an actual vote. Happy editing! Phædriel ♥ tell me -
21:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Comments
Edit summary usage: 91% for major edits and 93% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces.
Mathbot04:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
A. I see my primary contributions still being the same: trying to expand, verify, reference and integrate the various articles relating to cosmology, to revert vandalism, and trying to reconcile the concerns of the various editors in a reasonable fashion. Sometimes that feels like an infinite reservoir of work. With that said, I've lately been trying to branch out into doing more general editing and working on other articles, which is a welcome break. One thing that interests me is trying to informally mediate NPOV disputes in other fields. One thing that editing the cosmology articles has taught me is that there is often a depth to these disputes that is impossible to resolve without cooler heads lending a hand. I would also start hanging out on the
administrators noticeboard. –
Joke04:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)reply
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
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. The first really problematic edit conflict I can recall being involved in was over the
Cosmology article (see the talk page), where an anonymous editor was accusing me of pursuing a creationist bias. See the
failed RfA. That was more a nuisance than anything. The recent real conflict I have been in was the
plasma cosmology and
Big Bang (see talk archive four) dispute involving, principally,
Reddi and
Eric Lerner. See the relevant talk pages,
Elerner RfC,
Reddi RfC and
Reddi RfA. I've learned some lessons from this. I made
this reversion without an adequate talk page comment, which wasn't too bright, but mainly I regret having let the whole thing get me so wound up I had to take a break. A lot of disputes on Wikipedia – in addition to this, some recent disputes on the
cold fusion page come to mind – aren't well dealt with by bludgeoning people with the
NPOV policy. These problems can only be solved by calm, rational discussion and a genuine search for consensus. –
Joke04:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Incidentally, since I've seen it come up a few times recently on Wikipedia, I'd like to say that I wouldn't ever use administrator powers on an article I am deeply involved with editing, except to deal with simple vandals. –
Joke04:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Not sure really. I suppose there are two reasons. One was an experiment: I was interested to see who would edit it and what they would write. Answer: few and not much. The other reason is that I don't really believe anything about me matters except that I do my best to make quality contributions. I'm not much interested in arguments from authority. It's sort of the ideal science is based on, even if it isn't true in practice. It's true to a much better approximation on Wikipedia, which can be both a blessing and a curse. –
Joke04:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)reply
The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.