Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Leonard G.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Leonard G.

Vote here (19/3/4) ending 03:57 September 17, 2005 (UTC) Leonard G. (talk · contribs) - Self nomination, registered since early March, 2004. See my user page for some of my contributions.

Applicant's note

Greetings to all:
I have found much joy and reward in editing and in my many interactions with my fellow editors and will continue to do so, and to assist other editors as much as I possibly can through image and other contributions. All I really wanted was a one button revert and to be able to block the more outrageous vandals. For all those below who have given me support, and those who did not but made complementary remarks on my article work I thank you, it makes me feel good to be appreciated. I value WP for the personal growth opportunity it has given me - I am a much better writer and photographer and feel especially that it has improved my interpersonal skills (you think that they are bad now?) ;-) For those administrators of WP (all of them) I am thankful, for they provide the environment that makes our work as editors possible. I would far rather be an effective editor than an ineffective administrator. Please consider this to be my official withdrawl of my RfA. I expect to be putting in some suggestions in a year or so as to possible improvements in the admin setup and trust that these will be examined in a spirit of open-mindedness.
Best wishes to you one and all, sincerely, Leonard G. 03:16, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support. Over 10k edits, although curiously few in Wikipedia or User namespace. Having read the talk page, Leonard G. seems like a good candidate. — JIP | Talk 08:21, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
  2. Support. 10k+ edits and not an admin? Seems like a great guy, I have no problem supporting. -GregAsche (talk) 17:51, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Support. Looks good. mrholybrain 19:35, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support for rather the same reason that Thorpe is neutral. Anyone can contribute information to articles -- someone who wants to fix things and clean up after vandals is exactly who should be an admin. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:52, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
  5. Ruairidi 02:53, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
  6. Diligently took care of all my obj in his SF-OB FAC nom. User:Nichalp/sg 07:58, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support Kate's Tool is down at the moment, so I can't see just how few Wikipedia namespace edits you have. However, since I can't judge you on that, I'll have to support you based on your intelligence and peaceful behavior. :) Acetic'Acid 05:46, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  8. Support. I only vote on people I have worked with. I collaborated with Leonard on the our recent featured article (appearing on the front page in a few days). Leonard is a pleasure to work with. He is always respectful and diligent. -- Samuel Wantman 06:39, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  9. I see no reason to oppose this user. Andre (talk) 00:47, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
  10. I see no reason to oppose this user, either.--Jusjih 07:34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support - Sure! --Phroziac (talk) 15:04, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support One of the better candidates this week. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 19:59, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  13. Support solid contributor --Jiang 20:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  14. Support I fully support, for many of his QUALITY photo contributions. --Xah Lee 01:56, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  15. Support, I was wondering where I'd run into him before, and then I recognized a few pictures of his that have helped out articles I like. Solid user, deserving of adminship for sure. -Lommer | talk 00:15, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  16. These opposes are absolutely ridiculous. BRIAN0918 • 2005-09-14 02:48
  17. Support After 10,000 edits, what namespace you edit in is totally irrelevant. This should be no big deal, remember? A good candidate for a good cause ;). Bratschetalk | Esperanza 03:16, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  18. Support. I see absolutely no reason for punishing an editor for not involving himself in policymaking or the swirling, stinking BS that passes for it, nor for avoiding the petty politics and borderline warfare that some Wikipedia namespace articles host. It would probably be much more beneficial for Wikipedia if we discouraged it, given that we already have more than enough policy to go round when this would actually suffice. Grace Note 03:40, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  19. Support due to his high volume of quality articles, bridge in particular. Pleasant to work with. Cacophony 04:09, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  20. Support due to the quality of his contributions.Pollinator 01:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  21. Support. El_C 04:04, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose Its nothing against Leonard G. I looked at his contributions and I've decided to oppose. The Fascist Chicken 05:39, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
    Mind if I ask what you didn't like about his contributions? Acetic'Acid 01:04, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Oppose, and quite strongly too. Article stuff is good, I'll say that up front. But the contributions to the admin related areas are really very small. Only 93 Wikipedia: edits is just too few for me. Also, the answers to the neutral votes below do appear to reveal some lack of clarity on what adminship brings in terms of additional abilities and responsibilities. His response to Angr is seriously misjudged and Angr's reasoning was perfectly civil. I don't fully understand the response to Scimitar at all; it appears to be a railing against the whole structure of Wikipedia, along with some things he'd like to see changed. Unless I misunderstand, Scimitar hadn't asked for a wishlist of technical features. This seems to me to be another misjudgement of a comment. The response to Encephalon includes alarming responses regarding what amounts to a "hardly every delete" with little or no reference to policy. It is not for admins to decide they don't like a policy and thence to sidestep it. I'd suggest spending some time in the areas you'd plan to help out in with your admin duties (you don't say where that would be very clearly), and see what kind of discussions take place there. Once you've got something like several hundred Wikipedia: or Wikipedia talk: edits, you'll be far more sure of how to judge this kind, and other kinds, of discussion. As an added bonus, you'll have a clearer picture of whether you'd be happy doing admin things. Meantime, keep up the excellent article work. -Splash 02:05, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
    Railing against the whole structure of Wikipedia"> - I do not consider my modest proposal for a more incremental progression (and its illustration by example) to be railing, but if you do, I have no further comment. Leonard G. 03:22, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  3. Oppose, as per Splash. —Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 04:02, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  4. Oppose as per Splash, Angr, and Scimitar. Leonard G.'s answers here demonstrate a poor understanding of administrative functions as well as WP policies. I am also concerned with the escalating tone of his replies, the last few of which sound outright hostile. Mind you, Leonard G. has every right to be angry at the comments he reads here; he has spent countless hours doing valuable work for Wikipedia, and in return he gets criticism about what may seem like a superficial issue of form and manners. However, as an admin, he will face criticism like this on a daily basis, and must be prepared to deal with it in an even-tempered, consensus-building manner. Owen× ☎ 19:32, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  5. Oppose as above. Too few WP space edits for me to support at this time. --Alan Au 07:54, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. I really not too sure on you being an admin. I know you help clear up the place and fix things but you don't contribute information to articles, you just fix errors and such (which is good). I would say you need to help improve articles by adding information to them as well. -- Thorpe talk 20:01, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
    Do you want a list of my original material? A portion of it is on my user page - Leonard G. 02:02, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
  2. I disagree with Thorpe; I think the contributions to article space are impressive and definitely go beyond mere copyediting/proofreading. I'm also impressed by the contributions of images. But I'm worried by the relatively few contributions to Wikipedia space; it means you're not contributing much to the administration of Wikipedia (deletion discussions, policy discussions, etc.) So that's why although I don't oppose your becoming an admin, I can't really support it either. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 23:03, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
    Well, I'm not an admin (not yet) - so why debit me for not being involved in admin matters? - Leonard G. 02:02, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
    Well, Angr has a point; deletion discussions, policy discussions, and such are not "admin matters" in that only admins do it; everyone can and should (if they wish) get involved in those sorts of discussions. Admins have a couple of special tools (article deletion and protection, in particular) that let them carry out the result of these general discussions.--jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:42, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
    That is not an area that I have explored (yet), being focused exclusively on article related matters, but if I become an admin I assure you that I will become involved, but probably more in the area of article format standardization and the like (editing, or perhaps rather superediting) and less so in specific policy discussions except as I can contribute from an article presentation point of view. (After all, I will be in this context a "newbee".) - Leonard G. 03:00, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
    I'd like to see more participation in discussions of matters of deletion, WP policy, and the like before giving you the buttons to carry out the results of those discussions. Being a non-admin participant in those discussions gives you a good feel for the way things are supposed to work. If you do, I'd be happy to support you for adminship in two or three months. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 13:19, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
    So that's what it takes to get a one button revert? - no thanks, I prefer to do it the hard way (which is not that difficult, it just takes an extra 30 or 40 seconds during which Wikipedia is presenting to the public some things that are inappropriate for any audience seeking encyclopedia information (unless they are looking up specialized topics that are by their nature sensitive). Let us suppose that someone's son or daughter is looking for assistance for some background for homework - say Earthquake, and mommy or daddy says "lets look it up on Wikipedia". They go together and look up "Earthquake", and lets just suppose the family has origins in Mexico. So what do they [see?]. Is this worth the price of your attitude toward my not becoming an admin unless I am knowledgeable about "...the way things are supposed to work"? If you think that it is worth the extra thirty seconds to present racist "crap" (and pictures of human fecal matter in non related articles) than I question your judgement, directly, here and now. Now if you think this is to confrontational for wikipedia, so be it, I agree that this is attitude is not appropriate for an article, nor an article discussion page, nor a note on someone's user page (I do try to be gentle and polite), but I do not think that it is too confrontational for this particular admin matter. (Please note that this is not a matter of prudishness - I have a number of edits related to articles that some may not want their children to see, but I have tried in my edits to be informative and forthright - but this is my position and style as an editor). What are the "powers" that would be conferred to me that you think that I am not yet ready for? I frequently see repeated, minute by minute vandalism of a single article, repeatedly by the same vandal, each to be reverted by the same editor (who could otherwise be enhancing WP's knowledge base), and other vandals jumping from article to article leaving a trail of destruction. I understand that as an admin that I have sysop status, and would be capable of blocking such vandals (although this appears ambiguous in the WP information, which seems to imply that only stewards have this power). I am quite capable of recognizing the difference between a test, and a single juvenile insertion into Homer of Homer Simpson material, and the kind of vandalism for which blocking would be appropriate. I have even complemented testers on removing their own tests (e.g., a single letter X in an article, quickly removed) and have invited them to become editors. I have also taken what appear to be extensive student essays inserted as sections and have spent considerable effort to edit them to a reasonable state, rather than to perform a massive (and discouraging) deletion, leaving it to others to reduce the text to a reasonable surviving single paragraph (see Film) - this in the hope that a potential future editor is not discouraged by being labeled as a "vandal" - a term that I think is used far too loosely by editors who have not taken the time to read and discern the meaning of the questionable entry. - Leonard G. 03:36, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  3. Neutral. I was about to support a first-rate contributer in Leonard G., but then I read his last answer. It, in my opinion, misunderstood admin powers. It isn't just the one-button revert, it's also the power to delete articles and images, judge consensus and administer votes, and enforce policy. It's hard to jump right in and do a good job of it without some policy background. However, I would still have voted support, but his last comment seemed angry, and frankly, out of proportion to Angr's comment.--Scimitar parley 14:17, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
    It appears to me that your Admin-Bureaucrat-Steward structure is to coarsely divided, in that moving from one stage to the next is too big a jump owing to the powers inferred at each step. No military, and few other organizational structures would use such a "flat" structure. What is needed is a series stage something like the following:
    • Reversion powers with alert tool. One button reversion combined with "close watch", allowing any change in an article to create an alert. Since the wiki software probably does not support instant alerts, this should be accessible at least via a button on any page being viewed - It could come up as a pop-up to avoid disruption of an editor's current edit.
    • Short term blocking. Blocking an IP for (say) fifteen minutes would enable interruption of the use of WP for back channel messaging and would greatly simplify the task of keeping up with the fast vandal (or even a robotic vandal). I have seen vandalism where it is obvious that people are using WP article to hurl insults back and forth or to insult third parties. "The time that blocks could be imposed would be extended as the editor progresses through the ranks of trust and competence.
    • Etc. In this way a newbie could be given limited (and useful) powers without having all the baggage of having to satisfy nervous and angry existing administrators.
    • You may consider this response as an example of my problem-solving capabilities. - Leonard G. 16:13, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutral. I had precisely Scimitar's reaction on reading the exchange with Angr, and am further puzzled by the latest answer— it does not address Scimitar's concerns, nor is it delivered in a tone that is particularly helpful. I will not oppose, as I do not believe Leonard G poses a clear threat to WP were he to become admin, but I am concerned that he is not quite ready for the role— and that he does not appear to realize or concede this possibility. If, as is likely, he is sysoped, I hope that he will take these expressions of concern in the right spirit and seek a fuller understanding of adminship in WP. With best wishes—encephalonὲγκέφαλον  09:19, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
It was not my intention to sidestep Scimitar's remark, but rather to suggest an effective solution to the underlying problem (WP progression being too coarse grained). With regards to becoming an administrator I view it in the way that martial arts belts a offered - one's possession of a belt (other than white, which is a gift) never means that one has earned it - only that the previous belt was earned and that the holder is now in training and practice at the level signified by the current belt, and that this applies even to black belts up to the level of master (and a humble master should also consider him/her self to always be "in training" and open to learning - It has been suggested that an effective master will learn mostly from from observing their white belts and teach by transferring this knowledge to their black belts). Personally, my greatest achievements in the improvement of existing articles have come from rewriting the awkward additions of other edititors (typically young or whose primary language is not English) - for it is they who saw the deficiencies in the article ("beginners mind" to use a Zen term). It is in the spirit of that that I made the technical and organizational suggestions above. To address Scimitar's concern's directly:
  • I will not delete images without consensus unless I can clearly identify such as being a copyright violation,
  • Article deletion should be done be editor/administrators with good knowledge of the article to be deleted. Rather than delete articles I personally believe that it is far better to rename and rewrite except in the case of obvious vanity biographies and low ranking commercial insertions ("XXXX Dry Cleaning of Podunk). The real challenges occur at the margins - the gray area between the obvious on either side. It is those cases for which I believe that consultation among editors and administrators is required.
Please name other (potentially dangerous) powers that would be available to me - I will respond as to how I would use them. - Leonard G. 17:31, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
It is gracious of you to reply, Leonard, thank you. As stated earlier, I certainly do not consider you to be a potentially dangerous sysop; the nature of the wiki is such that little harm can be done it except by Users with malignant intentions. I only believe that you will be much better prepared for sysophood with more experience of the kind referred to by Angr and Scimitar. The WP Admin has many roles, and the community generally expects of its sysops a certain familiarity with the practices, policies and guidelines that govern the encyclopedia. As these are often quite complicated—and I say this with all the humility of one addressing another much more experienced than he—it is often desirable that experience is gained in these matters beforehand. I know that I learn something new almost every day, simply by observing the many far wiser heads than mine in the Wikipedia space. It would be great if you added to your impressive experience in the articlespace some work here too. Kindest regards—encephalonὲγκέφαλον  21:22, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
How about page deletion and protection? You said yourself that you are a newbee in that area, and those areas are two of the few things that sysops can do that normal editors can not fully handle. Vandalism is the tip of the administrator icecube, and normal editors are capable of handling vandals. Even though a normal editor can not ban a vandal outright, they are still more than capable of bringing them to the attention of the sysops. On the other hand, users have no control over carrying out the decisions reached in requests for page protection and vote for deletion. --Aluion 18:35, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Comments

  • Leonard G., please accept your nomination and answer the questions below. Otherwise your nomination will be discarded. — JIP | Talk 08:21, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Nomination accepted - Leonard G. 13:25, 10 September 2005 (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. I perform a lot of vandalism reverts (I am watching 1807 articles) and the one button revert would be handy to have.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge and its subarticle Eastern span replacement of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge, the text section Suspension bridge#Construction sequence and Sundial Bridge at Turtle Bay. Graphic contributions include the bridge taxonomic chart in the bridge article among others. Shay locomotive, Pressure gauge and Thermostat (the latter two largely written by myself) include annotated images and clearly show complex mechanisms. For a small, self contained article with illustrations see continuous-rod warhead, with the subject explained clearly. For another article completely written by myself and for which I solicited and obtained third party images, see Ford Ranger EV. For other articles with solicited images see Inca rope bridge and Puente_de_la_Mujer.
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. A few times - although I would not use the term stress. I have found that things go smoothly with the right approach and attitude, with only a few exceptions such as Fox News and Global warming where there appears to be a community of really touchy editors ready to jump on any edit. I have articles of higher personal interest to work on anyway.
4. Please direct your attention to the proposal Wikipedia:Toby. Do you support, oppose, or remain neutral on this proposal? Regardless of your answer, assuming this proposal was implemented, would the existence of the Toby mechanism for user-controllable nondisplay of images cause you to rethink this edit? — Xiong熊talk* 06:46, 2005 September 12 (UTC)
Probably I would include both the images, probably by repositioning the artistic version and relating it to other artworks such as The Naked Maja (at the time I was unaware of any problems with the B/W, and my justifications for removing the artistic image in response to his replacement of it by the original (L'Origine_du_mond) was stated to jpgordon at this article in his discussion - this should probably be moved to the article discussion). Not that I think that a user's dynamic deletion of images would improve the underlying problem - that some want a Bowdlerized version of WP - and that extends far beyond mere images. I personally have no problem with the concept of a "WP Lite" that would be reviewed for use by (say) schoolchildren, but that leads to all sorts of potential problems - forking for one, and where to make the cut. Even if the cut is "floating" - e.g. article selection/reduction based on both topic and age level, there would be endless fights over classification. The problem is similar to that of the [Basic English] WP (which strangely is not presented among the selections at http://www.wikipedia.org - did it disappear?). A forked subset is simply not properly maintained unless it has an intensely interested community of editors. For this reason I am neutral on the issue, as I understand the need for it but am dubious of its practicality. A bit off topic, but since we are discussing images: insofar as vandals will replace images, the addition of images could be restricted to registered users while allowing deletion by any user, but this is both a policy and a (possibly difficult) technical matter beyond the scope of this reply. - Leonard G. 03:53, 13 September 2005 (UTC)