Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lou Sander

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Lou Sander

Voice your opinion. (0/0/0) Ending 12:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Lou Sander (talk · contribs) – Lou is an excellent editor and writer and has a keen mind when it comes to interpreting policy. I've watched for several months as he has attempted to keep the Ann Coulter article in-line with the WP:BLP policy. This has been a difficult task and Lou has done this with civility and class. Lou's personal experience and wisdom makes him an asset to the project. I strongly feel that he would make an excellent administrator, especially in the task of resolving conflicts. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 12:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I thank Malber for his/her nomination, but I must decline it due to lack of time. My main interest at this point is in posting new articles, and I've still got a few to go.

Malber is absolutely right that working on articles about controversial big-mouthed blondes is a "difficult task." But it's a lot of fun, even though it sometimes raises the blood pressure. [I haven't lost any sleep over the @#$&% Ann Coulter article yet, but I have spent my share of time in an unhealthy agitated state ;-)].

Though I can't be an administrator right now, I DO want to answer the questions below:

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 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't help out right now, but please keep reading...
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I'm really pleased with my articles on mostly WWII-era Navy ships, such as the USS Andromeda, because they show the miraculous nature of Wikipedia. The basic info in these articles is available elsewhere online, but it's hard to find a specific ship, and the articles are full of obscure and now-forgotten terms like Humboldt Bay and Zeke. With Wikipedia, you can find your ship very quickly, and you can clarify the obscure terms with a click of your mouse. With another click or two, you can find source material for the article, expanded information about it, or both. Wikipedia is truly a world-class miracle, and it's all done by volunteers.
(I'm also pleased with my crazy user page, because it's unique, and because it's a highly-distilled concoction of information, humor, creative wiki-linking, and tongue-in-cheek self-promotional bullsh*t that many people like and many people don't.)
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: I basically don't have editing conflicts, even though I work in some controversial articles. When the article is controversial, I prefer not to edit it myself, but to bring things up on the discussion page, and let other people make the edits. If I want to make an edit myself, I propose it on the discussion page and give the reasons why I want to make it. Then I wait at least a day, and preferably two days, to let other people comment. If they don't comment negatively, I make the edit and refer to the discussion page in the edit summary. If somebody DOES comment, I answer it and keep the discussion going. If consensus ensues, I make the edit; if it doesn't, I don't.
On non-controversial articles, I boldly make the edits that seem right, discussing them on the talk page if I think they need it.
General comments

Discussion (for expressing views without numbering)

Support

Oppose

Neutral