If you have any of the year or date articles on your watchlist (and you should, those are prime targets for vanity vandals who desperately want their birthdays to be encyclopedic), then Jredmond's username shouldn't be unfamiliar to you. He's extremely dedicated at reverting vandalism, and seems to deal with conflict in a calm manner. He would definitely get some good mileage out of the revert button.
DropDeadGorgias(talk) July 7, 2005 21:06 (UTC)
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I am honored to accept this nomination. -
jredmond 8 July 2005 17:22 (UTC)
Support. Savvy in catching POV language and working reasonably with other editors to remove or substantiate, and also seems to make effort to present content in a manner intended to ward off potential POV edit wars. I noticed this on the
AIDS article for example, but this style is evident on a broad spectrum of articles. --
MPerel (
talk |
contrib)00:01, 11 July 2005 (UTC)reply
My only contact with Jredmond, as I recall, is a news article about Wikipedia in which we were both quoted, but from that impression alone (and the way he spoke about Wikipedia), it's clear we can trust him with "the keys to the custodian's closet", as
moink would put it.
Jwrosenzweig08:51, 12 July 2005 (UTC)reply
Support Has all the admin qualities.
Sango123 15:13, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
Support Vandals quake at the sight of a mop, and will be put into good use!
Bratschetalk5 pillars 02:47, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
Strong support. A no-brainer: Jredmond has been one of the most impressive vandal fighters around, and his responses to the questions below illustrate that he has a given the sort of thought towards sysop protocols that are my greatest concern in adminship votes. –
Seancdaug 04:57, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
Has the user been informed of their nomination?
Harro5 July 8, 2005 05:08 (UTC)
Yes; DropDeadGorgias asked on my talk page if I'd be interested before he created this nomination. I just got sidetracked by the 'real world' before I could reply here. -
jredmond 8 July 2005 17:22 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
A. I already help with vandalism, but the rollback tool would make it much easier to handle simple and/or persistent vandals (though I prefer to leave a reason in most cases). I will also help with page un/protection and un/deletion and vandal blocking as appropriate.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. The overwhelming bulk of my edits are minor — removing unencyclopedic entries here, copyediting there — but I am proud of my contributions to the
baseball article. (Most were done to a
temp version, which has since been moved to the main article.)
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. I've been involved in several controversial articles (
circumcision,
Terri Schiavo) and in a few strange controversies (
St. Louis Blues vs.
St. Louis Blues (hockey), naming conventions for US cities), and I'd like to think that I handled myself well (though the edit histories stand for all to see). Generally, I can choose an appropriate response by reminding myself that NPOV and substantiated facts are more important here than my own entrenched opinions; if things get very heated, I cope by ranting on my blog or to a friend's open ear or by lifting heavy weights. Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for my frustrations, though, and if I'm directly involved in some controversy then my admin wand gets set aside.
If you have any of the year or date articles on your watchlist (and you should, those are prime targets for vanity vandals who desperately want their birthdays to be encyclopedic), then Jredmond's username shouldn't be unfamiliar to you. He's extremely dedicated at reverting vandalism, and seems to deal with conflict in a calm manner. He would definitely get some good mileage out of the revert button.
DropDeadGorgias(talk) July 7, 2005 21:06 (UTC)
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I am honored to accept this nomination. -
jredmond 8 July 2005 17:22 (UTC)
Support. Savvy in catching POV language and working reasonably with other editors to remove or substantiate, and also seems to make effort to present content in a manner intended to ward off potential POV edit wars. I noticed this on the
AIDS article for example, but this style is evident on a broad spectrum of articles. --
MPerel (
talk |
contrib)00:01, 11 July 2005 (UTC)reply
My only contact with Jredmond, as I recall, is a news article about Wikipedia in which we were both quoted, but from that impression alone (and the way he spoke about Wikipedia), it's clear we can trust him with "the keys to the custodian's closet", as
moink would put it.
Jwrosenzweig08:51, 12 July 2005 (UTC)reply
Support Has all the admin qualities.
Sango123 15:13, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
Support Vandals quake at the sight of a mop, and will be put into good use!
Bratschetalk5 pillars 02:47, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
Strong support. A no-brainer: Jredmond has been one of the most impressive vandal fighters around, and his responses to the questions below illustrate that he has a given the sort of thought towards sysop protocols that are my greatest concern in adminship votes. –
Seancdaug 04:57, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
Has the user been informed of their nomination?
Harro5 July 8, 2005 05:08 (UTC)
Yes; DropDeadGorgias asked on my talk page if I'd be interested before he created this nomination. I just got sidetracked by the 'real world' before I could reply here. -
jredmond 8 July 2005 17:22 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
A. I already help with vandalism, but the rollback tool would make it much easier to handle simple and/or persistent vandals (though I prefer to leave a reason in most cases). I will also help with page un/protection and un/deletion and vandal blocking as appropriate.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. The overwhelming bulk of my edits are minor — removing unencyclopedic entries here, copyediting there — but I am proud of my contributions to the
baseball article. (Most were done to a
temp version, which has since been moved to the main article.)
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. I've been involved in several controversial articles (
circumcision,
Terri Schiavo) and in a few strange controversies (
St. Louis Blues vs.
St. Louis Blues (hockey), naming conventions for US cities), and I'd like to think that I handled myself well (though the edit histories stand for all to see). Generally, I can choose an appropriate response by reminding myself that NPOV and substantiated facts are more important here than my own entrenched opinions; if things get very heated, I cope by ranting on my blog or to a friend's open ear or by lifting heavy weights. Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for my frustrations, though, and if I'm directly involved in some controversy then my admin wand gets set aside.