Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Judae1

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

[edit] Judae1

Final (0/5/0); ended 18:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawn by candidate. (aeropagitica) 18:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Judae1 (talk • contribs) - The user is me. I am a writer, an editor, a political and policy wonk, certain foreign affairs expert, general reader of non fiction, and sometimes good sci-fi or mystery novels. I work for a public relations firm, own a bakery and have been a political and community advocate in NYC and Israel for a very long time Juda S. Engelmayer 16:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

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 participants:

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

A: I can handle article cleanups, as I am pretty good about copy editing works and would gladly assist with reviews on Candidates for speedy deletion for wikipdia policy and with facts in the articles. Not great at editing my own, though. I can also check facts, copyrights, and have a wealth of resources to pull from. I will go through images with unknown copyright status, images with unknown sources and articles lacking sources. Clealry most can be done now too without the admin status, but it is a level of authority and responsibility that one must do as an administrator.

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

A: Pablo Rubinstein - Dr. Rubinstein is truly an unsung hero, someone who quietly revolutionized a field of medicine and has saved many lives as a result, but does not appear to me a status seeker, not looking for praise and just continues doing his work – trying to find way to cure through his non-controversial method of stem cell research, while also advocating for full funding for embryonal stem cell research.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: Sure, LoHo and now SPURA. I was called all kinds of names by community advocates who hate the idea of the Lower East Side gentrifying, and seek to place blame for it. Rather than looking at the facts, the history and the trends, they attacked the person who began the trend and offered that as their reasons for wanting the article deleted. I was called a shill, a marketer for the real estate guy, etc, all denying my true and genuine ties and ideas for the Lower East Side or LoHo – a place and an ideal that I have been working hard for most of my life. One writer who was not angry at the source, but who missed the point, encapsulated what I think was the overriding sense that leas to the articles deletion. She wrote something like this, ‘I think the realtor is a decent guy, but I don’t want my neighborhood called LoHo.’ Unfortunately, like the person who began it or not, people’s feelings on what they like and don’t like carried the day, and the facts were ignored. That was an unfortunate fight and loss, LoHo will be back, and soon, as you can’t stop the freight train barreling down the track. My article lost to people’s emotions. Here is a shining example of where being right doesn’t win the argument.

I deal with it by either bolstering the article the best I can, finding sources and references to help. In the end, try again through legal methods and move on. There’ll be other articles to edit, originate and fight over. As for LoHo, I live there, I see the movement daily and know that the tide will continue to roll in.

For SPURA, I think – and said so – that the editor who asked to delete the page simply lumped it with the LoHo argument, as he said – see other page that user created… That too, I will edit, add citations and hopefully win that one. We’ll see where else he goes to follow my work. I am a diplomat, but an avid follower of politics. Coming from a political background, I know when an argument is truth based or opinion based. The ultimate test is to get the facts to stand over the emotions.

General comments

• See Judae1's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

Discussion

Support

Oppose

1. Oppose. You don't need to be an admin to cleanup articles. --Majorly (talk) 17:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose While I don't believe in editcountitis, 442 total edits confirms the lack of understanding of how Wikipedia works currently demonstrated at DRV diff. GRBerry 17:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose, suggest withdawal, yadayadayada. Not enough overall experience but you look like you're on the right track. Try again in 3-4 months, and start participating in XfD.--Wizardman 17:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose Demonstrated lack of understanding of Wikipedia goals and guidelines in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LoHo. Valuable editor and potentially good candidate in time, but for now, the the misrepresentation/misunderstanding of the Afd debate shows inability/unwillingness to compromise and see opposing view. Ytny 17:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose. I don't think you need the tools, or understand fully what being an administrator is; "it is a level of authority and responsibility" is looking at it the wrong way. Trebor 18:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

The above adminship 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 talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.