User:Robin Patterson

I nominate Robin Patterson for adminship. I know that his 605 edits since January 30 are at the lower end of Wikipedians' tolerance range, but from my own dealings with him I know that he strives for quality over quantity. I hope that all will take note of the high standard of his work, and elect him to a position to which he is well suited. David Cannon 01:57, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Thank you for the votes of confidence, David and others. I may not actually DO anything with the position (seeing my main "responsibility" as a continuation of being the major operator as a sysop on Wikipedia Maori over the last few months), but one never knows. Kia ora! Robin Patterson 03:45, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Support

1. David Cannon 01:57, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC).
2. Lst 27 02:14, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
3. Good edits indeed. GeneralPatton 02:32, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
4. Neutrality 03:54, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
5. Absolutely older≠ wiser 04:15, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
6. Ambivalenthysteria 05:15, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
7. Merovingian✍ Talk 11:31, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
8. Seems like a thoughtful, balanced contributer to me. Quadell (talk) 18:10, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
9. Support, the quality is definitely there, even if the quantity is low, and I think Robin is a very helpful, friendly and level-headed contributor. — Stormie 00:17, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
10. Cribcage 04:22, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
11. (See below). —Lady Lysiŋe Ikiŋsile | Talk 06:29, 2004 Jul 29 (UTC)
12. Kim Bruning 16:04, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC) Lots of useful edits on New Zealand information. + Also contributes at another language wikipedia. (see under comments)
13. A quality contributor. Being a sysop elsewhere doesn't automatically make you a sysop here, but I trust Robin is familiar with our policies, since it's probably been necessary to draw from them in the effort to build the Maori Wikipedia. I also don't expect admins to necessarily be highly active in that capacity, so I'm not concerned with how Robin divides time between here and there. -- Michael Snow 21:00, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
14. In my experience, Robin would be deserving of "important and ponderous privileges" if we had any to offer here -- in the absence of them, I heartily approve of entrusting Robin with the few abilities of an administrator (and their attendant disadvantages). :-) Jwrosenzweig 21:28, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
15. squash 08:14, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)
16. No big deal. anthony (see warning) 15:57, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
17. ALargeElk | Talk 10:08, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Sorry, seems like a genuine and good contributor, but far too few edits for me. blankfaze | (беседа!) 17:54, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
2. I'd just like to point out that a person's edits are not and should not be the only factor in adminship decisions. Certainly, they are an important indicator, but it should be asked as well what a prospective admin will do for Wikipedia. No offense, but it seems like Mr. Patterson is quite involved with the Maori Wikipedia, and, as he himself has stated, "may not actually DO anything with the position." Perhaps more people need to view adminship as an important and ponderous privilege rather than a social title. -- Slowking Man 06:04, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

   Adminship is not an important and ponderous privilege. It's the technical ability to perform certain administrative actions, and the trust from the community that one can perform those actions in an accepted and helpful manner. At least, that's how it should be; in reality administrators are (through no fault of their own) somewhat revered as Important People and their admin status gives them an elevated social position. I am therefore supporting this nomination on the grounds that whether or not this user intends to, or will, make use of their privileges, there is no reason for hir not to have them. —Lady Lysiŋe Ikiŋsile | Talk 06:29, 2004 Jul 29 (UTC)

   • On the contrary: Fewer people should view adminship "as an important privilege" -- or else, we need to change the official policy ("no big deal"). In the meantime, since adminship remains officially nothing more than acknowledgement that a contributor is competent and trusted, a contributor's intention to use admin options (or not) is hardly relevant. Cribcage 06:40, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

   Lysine states that adminship involves the giving of trust from the community to the adminee. This is exactly right, and this is why adminship is important. Among other things, admins have the ability to ban users and IP ranges from accessing and/or editing the Wikipedia, to use the revert function, to move and delete pages, and to protect pages. While admins do not have unilateral leeway over executing such responsibilities, these certainly are not unimportant abilities. I disagree with the tendency for people to be viewed as qualified for adminship solely based upon edits. If people should recieve adminship after reaching some quota of edits, then voting is unnecessary. However, since adminship is important, I don't see why we should grant a person adminship if he or she is going to be inactive. Do we elect people to legislatures who publicly claim that they won't have time to attend sessions or vote on laws? -- Slowking Man 08:10, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

   • You're missing the point of a wiki. Yes, an admin is able to protect pages or ban users. But an anonymous user is able to come along and edit nearly any page of our encyclopedia. We don't restrict that ability to registered users, on the logic that, "It's too important." (You may have noticed that fact is our single most consistent source of criticism.) We've chosen to restrict a few select options, and our official policy is basically: "Anonymous users shouldn't be able to ban people; and since registration is free, there's little difference between an anonymous user and a day-old user ID. So we'll restrict these few options temporarily -- once we're sure you're on the level, you're in." As has been stated time and again and again: If you want to change the official policy, then do so. Otherwise, abide by it. Cribcage 13:50, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

   People should not automatically receive adminship after a certain number of edits: rather, a certain number of edits may be regarded as the base qualifications for adminiship. There are generally a fixed or limited number of members of a legislative body; it is therefore important to elect those who will make the most desirable difference. However, there are no practical limits to the number of sysops at any one time, so there is no inherent disadvantage to appointing sysops who may end up doing less work then their fellows. I agree that number of edits is not the sole, or most important criteria for adminship; however, proper assessment of a nominee's temperament can only take place after they have reached a certain amount of participation, which in real terms often translates to a minimum number of edits or length of time. —Lady Lysiŋe Ikiŋsile | Talk 08:23, 2004 Jul 29 (UTC)

   Slowking Man wrote: If people should recieve adminship after reaching some quota of edits, then voting is unnecessary. However, since adminship is important, I don't see why we should grant a person adminship if he or she is going to be inactive. Do we elect people to legislatures who publicly claim that they won't have time to attend sessions or vote on laws? I'm sorry, but I beg leave to disagree.

   We've all seen police officers sitting in parked cars, doing nothing. Are they wasting time? Is it a waste of money to pay them? NO. Even if the officer is doing nothing, the fact that he is there acts as a deterrent to people who would flout the law. I assure you, I won't be speeding if I know that a police officer, however "inactive," is around! Likewise, a sysop need not be "active" to be effective. The fact that others know that sysops are around is enough to discourage most would-be vandals and other problem users. I recall one experience I had with an article that two users were endlessly reverting and counter-reverting in a seemingly senseless edit war, without adding anything substantive to the content. I didn't have to do much. I (a) protected the page for a very brief period, and (b) put a note on the talk page, requesting that both users provide sources for the information they were fighting over, and included the "administrator" label in my signature,. I haven't had to do anything more since - they've both dropped the matter. Just like the speedster with the sedentary police officer, they both know that I'm around somewhere, "inactively" watching the page - and are therefore behaving themselves.

   The analogy of a legislative body is flawed. It is for good reason that sysops' official title is "administrator," not "legislator." Sysops do not constitute a legislative body in any sense of the word: we have no power, as a body, to make rules and regulations, only to enforce rules that the Wiki-community as a whole, consisting of all registered users who want to particpate, has decided upon. I'm afraid I have to disagree with your reasoning here, Slowking Man. David Cannon 22:12, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

• The idea is to determine whether we can trust Robin Patterson not to do anything crazy with admin privileges. One way is to look at some number of edits, and some period of time to statistically figure out if someone is trustworthy. But there's more ways. In this case Robin Patterson also contributes at another language wikipedia, and is apparently trusted there already. This tips the balance in this editors' favor for me. Kim Bruning 16:12, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters, if you care to respond:

1. Have you read the section on Administrators?

A. Yes, some of it more than once, a few months ago.

2. Are you interested in, and do you think you'll have some time to perform, the chores that only sysops have access to do, to help keep Wikipedia up to date?

A. Slightly, and yes, but see my main reply above.

3. If you become a sysop, which sysop chore or chores ( WP:VFD, recent changes, watching for vandals and vandalism, responding to editor requests for assistance, any other) do you especially think you would be able to help with.

A. Anything requested, but no guarantee of noticing anything urgently, because my visits are relatively rare and short compared with those of some contributors. My New Zealand timezone may be an advantage.

4. In your opinion, what article have you contributed the most successfully and helpfully to?

A. I don't recall anything outstanding; but my village, Plimmerton, and city, Porirua, have substantial contributions, with more to come if I get time and can avoid more distant distractions such as Tom Lehrer and Colonization (game). There was also the list of trees that I added after creating it for the Maori version. Robin Patterson 06:14, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

5. In your opinion, what has your best contribution to the running and maintenance of Wikipedia been? (i.e., have you reverted a bad stretch of vandalism, done extensive work categorizing articles, helped mediate a dispute?)

A. Wikipedia Maori (see main response above) and the welcoming of newcomers. Robin Patterson 06:14, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

6a. Of your Wikipedia edits and experiences thus far, what is your biggest regret?

A. None of the world's estimated 130,000 Maori language speakers has yet shown his or her hand in any significant way (except in the English Wikipedia).

6b. What do you wish you'd done differently?

A. Found WP years ago... Robin Patterson 06:14, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks and good luck! -- Cecropia | Talk 05:19, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)