Sarge Baldy (
talk·contribs) – Hello! I've been an administrator for about two years, and recently revoked my status so as to confirm it. This is because my initial vote garnered a total of only
four votes after a period of only a few months as an editor– people no doubt have a better impression of me now, and can judge my character a bit better.
Sarge Baldy02:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept (self-nomination).
Support an administrator who asks for the community to confirm his status? We should make all administrators do this, annually. Editing should be every user's primary function. Otherwise we'll be left with a needlessly complex, not to mention mindless, bureaucracy.
KI03:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Thanks for answering my questions below, although I realize now I perhaps should have put them under "Neutral."
JHMM13 (
T |
C) 03:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Now this is an interesting one...I considered voting oppose because of him saying he'd "[use] janitorial powers only per convenience when I see them to be necessary." Then again, he is trustworthy (2 years worth), and why must good editors be promoted only to waste all there time on trolls and red tap? Since we have hundreds of admins, I don't mind having some like this. Just make sure you put your name under "inactive" on the admin list.Voice of AllT|
@|
ESP04:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support, Hell, I don't know the the Sarge from personal interaction but, from what I've seen in the past and around this is one guy that knows what he's doing and an asset to the project. It would be an honor for me to vote for him.
Tony the Marine08:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. The editor is good, and so is the initiative of asking for admin status confirmation in a case like this. And teh bishpoints for teh selfnom, for sure. --
Bishonen |
talk11:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support This user has been, and will be, an awesome admin. I commend him also for being circumspect about his powers, and seeking confirmation.
Cincinnatus would be proud.
Xoloz17:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Usually on RFA we're guessing how a user will behave if given adminship, here we know. Of course the RFA cliché is particularly appropriate here.
David |
Talk19:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. He could just have started an RFC on this and saved us all the paperwork, but the user in question seems useful. Let him be admin again.SoothingR21:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. As someone who has edited several tennis/tennis player articles, I see Sarge's edits in those pages a lot and they are always correct ;)
Candice01:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose for now. Good editor with an ungodly number of edits, but I'm not entirely sure how useful he will be as an admin. Only 135 user talk page edits doesn't show too much user interaction, which is a crucial duty of an admin (warnings, consensus, etc.). Also, I'm not sure I think this user needs to be an admin considering his answer to question 1. In my opinion, an admin needs to check
WP:AIV, for instance, to help other users without admin powers. And question three really bothers me since an administrator's duties are practically filled with structural stuff (where, yes, you have to deal with white males). Why does an anarchist want to become and admin? I'm willing to support if these questions are answered.
JHMM13 (
T |
C) 03:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Personally I see active intervention against vandalism as a poor use of resources- most of the time it would be reverted promptly anyway, and simply patrolling RC does little to advance the encyclopedia, it simply counters threats that I (personally) don't consider a primary concern. To some degree, I would agree that I'm not the most productive of administrators- I just like having the tools at my disposal when I see a need to use them. I also can't see why my politics are on trial here.
Sarge Baldy03:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)reply
I'm satisfied with that answer about your admin productivity, thank you. Your politics aren't on trial, I was simply asking a question. The main issue I was considering is why you seem to be against white males like myself when you are feeling particularly upset with Wikipedia. I'm not implying that you've done anything like this before, but will the fact that I am part of the structural biases affect your reasoning if I am up for blocking?
JHMM13 (
T |
C) 03:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)reply
No, of course not. In fact, I fit into most of the categories I listed- I'm just saying that the Wikipedia inherently has the POV of its user base, and find that it strongly leans towards a certain minority, which causes some problems. I think it's great that that demographic is helping out- I just wish there was more diversity overall in the user base, so as to get a more complete picture and cover topics that aren't receiving enough attention.
Sarge Baldy03:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Neutral
Comments
Edit summary usage: 86% for major edits and 87% for minor edits. Based on the last 100 major and and 100 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and Talk namespaces.
I will say when I first came here I was sort of inspired by your RfA
Standards... I have to re-read it every now and then to make sure I'm not lifting the bar too high :).
WhiteNightT |
@ |
C07:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)reply
I suppose that I'm just a strong proponent of the "assume good faith" policy. I think most users are here in order to improve the site, and think it's beneficial to Wikipedia to give them more tools to do so. Removing power from those few here simply to abuse it makes more sense to me than giving it individually to the masses perfectly capable of managing it. Isn't that the entire logic of wiki anyway?
Sarge Baldy06:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Good answer. I hope you have no hard feelings about me being so harsh with my questions. I was just trying to figure you out :-).
JHMM13 (
T |
C) 14:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)reply
A. I tend to deal with issues as I come into contact with them, and do not seek out problems in order to correct them. It makes more sense to me to keep editing my primary priority, using janitorial powers only per convenience when I see them to be necessary.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I think I enjoyed writing
rationalization (sociology) most, because I found it an especially interesting topic at the time, and had a lot to say about it.
Lynette Fromme was also an interesting subject to tackle, and one I thought to be a major gap in Wikipedia's coverage.
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'm easygoing most of the time, but certainly I've been involved in conflicts, most recently at
anarchism, and previously at
atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and
September 11, 2001 attacks. (I'm particularly pleased with how the last of these turned out, as I was very frustrated at its previous definitive use of the word "terrorism".) I generally tend to assume good faith, and deal with people I'm in conflict with as rational human beings. When I get especially irritated I sometimes see Wikipedia as hopeless, due especially to inherent structural biases (male, white, middle class, Western, technophile), but most of the time I realize that any positive changes I make do help to improve the site, even if perfection is forever out of reach.
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.
Sarge Baldy (
talk·contribs) – Hello! I've been an administrator for about two years, and recently revoked my status so as to confirm it. This is because my initial vote garnered a total of only
four votes after a period of only a few months as an editor– people no doubt have a better impression of me now, and can judge my character a bit better.
Sarge Baldy02:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept (self-nomination).
Support an administrator who asks for the community to confirm his status? We should make all administrators do this, annually. Editing should be every user's primary function. Otherwise we'll be left with a needlessly complex, not to mention mindless, bureaucracy.
KI03:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Thanks for answering my questions below, although I realize now I perhaps should have put them under "Neutral."
JHMM13 (
T |
C) 03:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Now this is an interesting one...I considered voting oppose because of him saying he'd "[use] janitorial powers only per convenience when I see them to be necessary." Then again, he is trustworthy (2 years worth), and why must good editors be promoted only to waste all there time on trolls and red tap? Since we have hundreds of admins, I don't mind having some like this. Just make sure you put your name under "inactive" on the admin list.Voice of AllT|
@|
ESP04:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support, Hell, I don't know the the Sarge from personal interaction but, from what I've seen in the past and around this is one guy that knows what he's doing and an asset to the project. It would be an honor for me to vote for him.
Tony the Marine08:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. The editor is good, and so is the initiative of asking for admin status confirmation in a case like this. And teh bishpoints for teh selfnom, for sure. --
Bishonen |
talk11:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support This user has been, and will be, an awesome admin. I commend him also for being circumspect about his powers, and seeking confirmation.
Cincinnatus would be proud.
Xoloz17:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Usually on RFA we're guessing how a user will behave if given adminship, here we know. Of course the RFA cliché is particularly appropriate here.
David |
Talk19:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. He could just have started an RFC on this and saved us all the paperwork, but the user in question seems useful. Let him be admin again.SoothingR21:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. As someone who has edited several tennis/tennis player articles, I see Sarge's edits in those pages a lot and they are always correct ;)
Candice01:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose for now. Good editor with an ungodly number of edits, but I'm not entirely sure how useful he will be as an admin. Only 135 user talk page edits doesn't show too much user interaction, which is a crucial duty of an admin (warnings, consensus, etc.). Also, I'm not sure I think this user needs to be an admin considering his answer to question 1. In my opinion, an admin needs to check
WP:AIV, for instance, to help other users without admin powers. And question three really bothers me since an administrator's duties are practically filled with structural stuff (where, yes, you have to deal with white males). Why does an anarchist want to become and admin? I'm willing to support if these questions are answered.
JHMM13 (
T |
C) 03:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Personally I see active intervention against vandalism as a poor use of resources- most of the time it would be reverted promptly anyway, and simply patrolling RC does little to advance the encyclopedia, it simply counters threats that I (personally) don't consider a primary concern. To some degree, I would agree that I'm not the most productive of administrators- I just like having the tools at my disposal when I see a need to use them. I also can't see why my politics are on trial here.
Sarge Baldy03:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)reply
I'm satisfied with that answer about your admin productivity, thank you. Your politics aren't on trial, I was simply asking a question. The main issue I was considering is why you seem to be against white males like myself when you are feeling particularly upset with Wikipedia. I'm not implying that you've done anything like this before, but will the fact that I am part of the structural biases affect your reasoning if I am up for blocking?
JHMM13 (
T |
C) 03:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)reply
No, of course not. In fact, I fit into most of the categories I listed- I'm just saying that the Wikipedia inherently has the POV of its user base, and find that it strongly leans towards a certain minority, which causes some problems. I think it's great that that demographic is helping out- I just wish there was more diversity overall in the user base, so as to get a more complete picture and cover topics that aren't receiving enough attention.
Sarge Baldy03:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Neutral
Comments
Edit summary usage: 86% for major edits and 87% for minor edits. Based on the last 100 major and and 100 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and Talk namespaces.
I will say when I first came here I was sort of inspired by your RfA
Standards... I have to re-read it every now and then to make sure I'm not lifting the bar too high :).
WhiteNightT |
@ |
C07:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)reply
I suppose that I'm just a strong proponent of the "assume good faith" policy. I think most users are here in order to improve the site, and think it's beneficial to Wikipedia to give them more tools to do so. Removing power from those few here simply to abuse it makes more sense to me than giving it individually to the masses perfectly capable of managing it. Isn't that the entire logic of wiki anyway?
Sarge Baldy06:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Good answer. I hope you have no hard feelings about me being so harsh with my questions. I was just trying to figure you out :-).
JHMM13 (
T |
C) 14:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)reply
A. I tend to deal with issues as I come into contact with them, and do not seek out problems in order to correct them. It makes more sense to me to keep editing my primary priority, using janitorial powers only per convenience when I see them to be necessary.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I think I enjoyed writing
rationalization (sociology) most, because I found it an especially interesting topic at the time, and had a lot to say about it.
Lynette Fromme was also an interesting subject to tackle, and one I thought to be a major gap in Wikipedia's coverage.
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'm easygoing most of the time, but certainly I've been involved in conflicts, most recently at
anarchism, and previously at
atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and
September 11, 2001 attacks. (I'm particularly pleased with how the last of these turned out, as I was very frustrated at its previous definitive use of the word "terrorism".) I generally tend to assume good faith, and deal with people I'm in conflict with as rational human beings. When I get especially irritated I sometimes see Wikipedia as hopeless, due especially to inherent structural biases (male, white, middle class, Western, technophile), but most of the time I realize that any positive changes I make do help to improve the site, even if perfection is forever out of reach.
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.