User:Pigman/Views, Blues & Bio

I was made an admin on 8 November 2007. My RfA ended with 51 supports, 0 opposed and 0 neutral. It was remarkably uneventful.

[edit] The Admin Years

Me am admin now. Me will not change with this status. Me am still a humble editor, doing the best I and I can to overcome me First Person Pronoun Dysfunction Syndrome. Encyclopedic tone helps me greatly, as well as finding proper phrasing to accommodate it. Fortunately, first person voice is generally unused in the main article space. Me am glad.

[edit] Dual roles

I'm currently trying to find a balance between admin duties and responsibilities with the more engaging and satisfying work of editing. My judgment and attitude regarding this balance continues to undergo refinement and tweaking. In some ways, I think the admin side is losing a bit. I'm more happy wikignoming and doing writing, formating and structural changes to articles than making the rather harder (to me) decisions of an admin. Oh, often the admin decisions are uncomplicated. Judgments about vandalism are generally no-brainers to decide and well delineated. But there are many areas where the decisions aren't as clearcut. I also have no desire to burn out as an admin. If I spend too much time on admin decisions and actions, it tends to wear me out and down. When that happens, I will undoubtedly become resentful towards Wikipedia. That is not a good outcome. So I continue to juggle priorities.

[edit] Humble beginnings

I'm some guy who knows a little of this and that. I've worked in dead tree/print publishing off and on for 35 years. Wikipedia pertinent skills include: writing, newspaper and magazine editing, copy editing, proofreading, journalism, etc. My brag: I have been paid to use all of these skills. I started on Wikipedia in June, 2005 but I've been part of online communities/fora since 1985 or so, long before the internet became the World Wide Web. In those days, dull and insensate giant dinosaurs such as CompuServe and GEnie ruled the online world and mammal-like BBSs often lived brief but wondrous lives. Mock me not, for my first personal computer was an IBM PCjr with a single 5.25 floppy disk, 128K of memory and no hard drive before I upgraded it. This primitive beast still lurks in the basement.

In varying degrees, I'm working on:

Basically, I'm working on being a good Wikipedian and finding projects suited to my skills and interests. Assume my good faith in editing and if I make mistakes, please notify me; I'm not infallible. I try to behave evenly and with appropriate responses here but I have been known to get cranky on rare occasions, so if I act in an uncivil manner, please let me know. However, be aware that I have a low tolerance for trollish behaviour. You can be certain I've been on the internet long enough to recognize such behaviour quickly and I will act accordingly. I cleave to WP:AGF and courtesy to the best of my ability but at a certain point... well, I admit to imperfection. (My idea of imperfection is rather mild, though. I suspect most people wouldn't even notice the way I express it.)

[edit] That Funky Wikipedia Civilization

[edit] Starwood Arbitration

• Sigh. The time-consuming Starwood Mediation Starwood Arbitration is closed as of 24 March 2007. There are various findings of fact and proposed principles in it. The only proposed remedy was the following: "Rosencomet is cautioned to avoid aggressive editing of articles when there is a question of conflict of interest. If edit warring or other conflict arises, it may be best to limit editing to talk pages." Thus spake Arbcom.

[edit] I hateses the vandalses...

Working on vandalism patrol has given me some sympathy with the position of requiring editors to register and create an account before editing. A fairly cogent analysis of this position can be found here: User:Bluemoose/Thoughts. (I am woefully sad to find that Bluemoose left Wikipedia on 1-Dec-2006.) On the other hand, such a small step probably wouldn't discourage those who I call "hobbyist" vandals. For these, vandalism is a kind of strange text videogame and little can deter them in an open project like Wikipedia without making Wikipedia into a different beast altogether. (And yes, I know that requiring editors to register an account before editing is counter to m:Foundation issues. Allow me my little fantasy, OK?)

[edit] Current Pet Peeve

The remarkably low levels of footnotes, references, and third-party sources to support information in the body of many articles. A corollary to this is the use of trivial or not relevant links (usually as external links) as references in order to bolster and beef up the number of references. Padding references is a bad thing. Runner-up: Articles which clearly fall under What Wikipedia is not. Please read it. It's criteria I often use when evaluating articles up for deletion.

[edit] Worst Mistake

Currently awaiting my first tragically stupid big mistake as an admin. I'm expecting it to come in the closings of AfDs, a typical admin housekeeping task. However, when the obvious keeps and deletes have been taken care of, what remains are the contentious and not-necessarily-clear discussions that rely on subtle skill and knowledge of policy possibly somewhat beyond my current grasp. I do my best but I'm sure to overreach one of these times before my experience gives me confidence in handling these borderline decisions. I don't mind being wrong; what I dislike is being stupidly wrong.

[edit] Credo: My Deletionism Views

I am not a strict Deletionist. However, I do believe in taking the trash out. I try to not judge an article on my personal experience or familiarity with the subject but on verifiability and reliable sources. This means I am very tough on articles without reliable sources. I will take other experienced editor's views into consideration as to whether to allow a new article with flawed or no references to develop further. The consistent creation of vanity and promotional articles on WP leads me to be more ruthless in my judgments on particular types of poorly sourced articles than is perhaps necessary, but those are the breaks. Perhaps I'm more of a Darwikinist because I see myself in the role of culling the weak and sick from the herd. However, I am not inflexible; I will change my opinion if verifiable information can be presented and incorporated into the article.

We all contribute to the overall shape and form of the project. Wikipedia is an ecology of sorts, constantly finding a balance of needs and pooled skills, seeking homeostasis in development. (Coo, ain't he the pretty talker!) And vandals are the disease and I am the cure. (Wait, no, that's the tagline for the Sylvester Stallone movie vehicle Cobra, not my Wikipedia philosophy. Although, it kind of works...)

[edit] Never again the revert times!

Except in the cases of blatant (and I do mean blatant) vandalism, I'm not keen on reverting people more than once. I'm a firm believer that, if good faith edits are contested, the best course is discussion on the talk page and bringing in more eyes to evaluate the situation. I try hard in such cases to bring in editors I respect but don't know their specific opinion on the specific situation. I'd go so far as to say rallying bodies, !votes, and opinions to support one side or the other is a Bad Thing in almost all cases. I have a fair amount of trust in the good judgment of experienced Wikipedia editors, particularly in group processes.

[edit] Give me the dregs...

For some reason, I like going through the dead-end pages, pages with no wikilinks to other articles. These are often the dregs of Wikipedia articles: vanity, original research, oddball perspectives, strange subjects, inarticulate and ill-conceived weirdness, etc. The vast majority have absolutely no possibility of becoming even stubs, much less more standard articles. But then there are the gems, started by someone who doesn't really understand WP's policies or guidelines but is eager to learn and share their particular knowledge about a person or subject in an article. And that's part of why I work on Wikipedia: to watch and help articles arise from bare concept to stable nugget to a full article. Even a cynic such as I may smile at such unfolding and development. Despite the vandals and the sometimes difficult interactions with trollish participants, it's still fun.

[edit] Post Scriptum

I'd feel guilty about writing all this fluff but I observe that almost everything on it relates directly to my Wikipedia participation and experience. There are no links to my home page or blog. I want my actions and behaviour on Wikipedia to be the main criteria on which I'm judged by other Wikipedians. I try to act honourably here, an old-fashioned concept perhaps but one which is a touchstone for me. Post Post Scriptum: In light of regular exposures of Wikipedians who have misrepresented their education/qualifications in their dealings on Wikipedia, I might as well declare that my experience and background is pretty much what I've detailed on my various user page/subpages. I have never misrepresented myself on Wikipedia, claimed degrees or achievements I do not have, or lied about my background. I have neither the time nor energy to spend on creating elaborate alternate identities or personalities. My real flaw is Too Much Information Syndrome (TMI), exemplified by bothering to address this issue at all. So there.