Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jallan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Jallan

Vote here

(20/1/0) ends 04:25, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Jallan is careful & well-informed, contributing to mythology, history, linguistics, & other topics. Focused & reserved in exchanges with other editors. Someone I consider a solid contributor. More than 1000 edits, mostly since April 2004. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:25, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I accept the nomination. I also accept that being a sysop is "no big deal" if power is used carefully and with restraint.

Support

  1. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:25, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  2. ffirehorse 05:06, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  3. [[User:Rhymeless|Rhymeless | (Methyl Remiss)]] 05:06, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  4. ℛyan! | Talk 05:13, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
  5. —No-One Jones (m) 13:50, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  6. OK JFW | T@lk 20:09, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  7. Good grasp of policy, and excellent demeanour. -- Grunt   ҈  22:40, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)
  8. Michael Snow 22:58, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  9. Absolutely. --John Kerry + John Edwards 2004 23:43, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  10. Mike H 01:15, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
  11. –Andre (talk) 14:46, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  12. Fire Star 18:58, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  13. 172 00:31, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  14. [[User:Noisy|Noisy | Talk]] 22:00, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  15. Ambi 15:30, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  16. Support wholeheartedly. - Lucky 6.9 01:01, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  17. Always keeps cool, and always (thoroughly!) explains the reasoning behind votes. Support. • Benc • 10:35, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  18. [[User:Eequor|η♀υωρ]] 16:46, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  19. {Ανάριον} 11:44, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  20. Of course! [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 21:17, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Netoholic @ 06:39, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC) -- Lots of edits and long history, if a little sporadic. My concern, though, is that their edits consist quite largely of redirect creation (for very questionable alternate spellings) and also a disproportional amount of VFD involvement. VFD votes show a strong deletionist bent – don't see any effort to save or expand moderately bad articles. Personal experience tells me this user may not understand deletion policy and the definitions involved. Encourage other voters to review this users contributions (specifically VFD) before voting. Since there is no information on their user page describing personal philosophy, I can only go by their contribs.

Neutral

Comments

  • 1944 edits as of this moment. -- Netoholic @ 06:39, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)
  • On Netoholic's comments after his vote: I believe that someone encountering a spelling of a name on the web or in a book should generally be able to find an existing corresponding article in Wikipedia by entering the spelling they find, both with any diacritics and without diacritics. Currently I have mostly been working on articles in the area of Norse myth and legend which has involved far more research than I expected and three or four hours of uninterrupted work to properly check out the material. Accordingly editing has gone slowly. And in this area there is a great variation in spelling of names in English texts. I try to accomodate this by creating redirects, but only for forms which I know actually do occur (and sometimes also with those same forms without diacritics). Accordingly the result is often the creation or rewriting of an article followed by a large number of redirects both to the article and to other material covered by the article. Sadly there are sometimes a large number of variant forms of names found in different easily available English texts. Except for perhaps three or four typing errors, which I did not think worth the trouble of asking anyone to delete, the forms I have used in REDIRECTS do exist in commonly available English texts. In many cases more could be added. I generally don't go looking for spellings other than those in texts which I am consulting when creating or editing an article, though I am often aware of books where yet other spellings might be found. A complete set of redirects for such names is for the future. As to VfD, I believe, when I have voted for deletion, it is in accord with deletion policy. I certainly do not always vote DELETE, even on articles that seem to me mediocre. Jallan 19:46, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. Probably new page patrol. Beyond that, I will see where I can be useful with new sysop powers. Jallan 19:46, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Sanchuniathon contains a nice genealogy in which many of the entries point to articles subsequently created by myself or greatly expanded by myself. Anna Perenna isn't bad, compared to what came before. Moloch was taken from cleanup, though it could still be improved. But I left it rather than continue debate. Baal was also improved from what it had been. I have no particular favorites. Jallan 19:46, 5 Oct 2004 (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 will deal with it in the future?
A. I have been in such conflicts and have been stressed to the point of leaving this place forever. (The web is big, the world is big, so why stay somewhere where you meet constant frustration?) That supposed policies are not enforced or enforceable is a continuing problem. I have accordingly walked away from the article, rather than both article and Wikipedia, realizing that there were numerous other problem articles that I could improve and articles I could write from scratch and that the vast majority of people here are not unreasonable most of the time and that one can always return to a problem article in future. I also became involved in some of the drafting of Wikipedia:Dealing with disruptive or antisocial editors to hopefully make it easier to solve such disputes quickly. In the future I would be more likely to use current dispute resolution procedures, in part because I know my away around here now and in part because handling of disputes has improved. Jallan 19:46, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)