Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Joke137

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Joke137

final (34/5/7) ending 4:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

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 flight 23:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Yes, thank you! –Joke 04:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as nominator, of course. Dragons flight 23:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Merovingian {T C E} 06:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
3. 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. :) Guapovia 12:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
4. support having read through his past participation re: resolving conflicts I trust him with expanded powers. Pete.Hurd 14:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
5. Support Is it about edit count or edit quality? John Reid 15:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
6. Support. Good work with the encyclopedia and seems to handle dsiputes fairly well. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
7. Support. Contributions to articles are very helpful and he does use talk pages appropriately and solve disputes. David | Talk 15:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
8. Support per John Reid.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
9. strong support: sensible and thoughtful William M. Connolley 17:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
10. Support looks good to me--MONGO 20:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
11. Latinus 21:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
12. Support, strong candidate, unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
13. Support. I've seen Joke around on the physics pages and he has impressed me with how he handled some of the disputed I came across. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
14. 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 StrangeLove 22:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
15. Support Looks like a very dedicated, thoughtful editor. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
16. Support I liked his edits on Big Bang which popped up on my watchlist from time to time. —Ruud 00:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
17. 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 | TALK 00:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
18. 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)
19. Support. Slow and steady wins the race. Pschemp | Talk 05:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
20. 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. Steve block talk 14:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
21. Support - editors who devote themselves to content get my vote. Charles Matthews 21:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
22. --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
23. Support although more useful edits at project pages like this one will be much better.--Jusjih 03:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
24. 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.---CH 05:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
25. support: Per Charles Matthews. Ombudsman 06:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
26. Support. A solid contributor. Besides, we shouldn't judge level-headedness by editcounts. -- Fropuff 08:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
27. 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
28. Support. --Adrian Buehlmann 10:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
29. Support good candidate --rogerd 02:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
30. Support, No Joke, indeed a good candidate:>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 10:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
31. Support - looks good. Guettarda 14:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
32. Support. Good edits. Should have the tools. -- DS1953 ^talk 21:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
33. Support. Very solid editor, good community member.--ragesoss 07:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
34. SuperBowl Sunday Support Image:SuperBowlXL.png εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 21:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose. Needs more experience, especially in the project and user talk namespaces. --TantalumTelluride 06:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

1. Oppose, lack of experience with project and process. Radiant_>|< 15:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose per TantalumTelluride --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 20:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose 75 WP space edits would be enough... if only Joke137 had at least 2000 total edits. 1500 will not make the cut - sorry! --M@thwiz2020 23:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose per Radiant.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 00:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose per Radiant. Xoloz 04:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral Good editor but needs more edits. Please try again in two months if this doesn't go well.--a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 14:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

   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! –Joke 14:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

   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.m ^t 14:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

2. 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. -Zero^Talk 03:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
3. 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. Proto t c 12:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
4. Neutral until more project/process experience. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-01 15:29Z
5. 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. --TantalumTelluride 23:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
6. 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)
7. 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)

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. Mathbot 04:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• See Joke137's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.

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:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

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. –Joke 04:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A. Nothing stands out. I have made major contributions to most of the cosmology articles, sometimes rewriting them almost from scratch (cosmic microwave background, false vacuum, cosmic inflation, dark energy, timeline of the big bang, Lambda-CDM model, etc...). An example of an editing dispute that resulted in a particularly pleasing, collaborative outcome is the equivalence principle article. Sometimes there is nothing more pleasing that finding a missing article and writing a nice stub: Robinson-Schensted algorithm, string theory landscape, Manhattanville. Finally, I recently carefully redid the list of dog breeds by country. –Joke 04:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

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. –Joke 04:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

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. –Joke 04:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

4. Why is your user page blank? --TantalumTelluride 04:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

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. –Joke 04:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

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.