Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Peter Ellis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Peter Ellis

(10/8/0) ending 03:50 April 19, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, not that I'm hanging by my fingernail waiting for an answer or anything, and I've been out of contact for several days while away with my job. But... What happens now? I can't find any emails, or any comments at User_talk:Peter_Ellis#The_vote. Just wondering... Peter Ellis 05:56, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Cecropia explained at 07:21, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) that I had NOT been successful. I asked 37 minutes later, "How is the candidate informed, usually? I can not see anything, anywhere, about this last act in the drama; however, I'm happy to be told where it is." I guess I should just wait. I guess that I could see this as a factor of my being so uninvolved in the User community per the vote comments... :-) Peter Ellis 15:24, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have been a regular contributor to Wikipedia for over 12 months. As well as editing, I am a regular contributor of new material including pictures (see the list of pages I have established, at User:Peter Ellis. I am known widely at various web sites for linking to Wikipedia. I am known by email to several other contributors and in person by at least one Administrator. Yes, a self-nomination. Peter Ellis 04:35, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC) And, please read the re-newed User:Peter Ellis for geek info that might change your mind, after all. Peter Ellis 12:15, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Blankfaze/admin, I now have one person's standard against which to judge myself.

  • Number of edits: not there, yet at <2,000 (but >1,000);
  • Time registered: Well qualified at ~15 months;
  • POV editing: I have also written (established) several articles about people or topics with which I'm diametrically opposed socially or politically. Guess for yourself.
  • Dispute issues: I've NOT got caught up, when I could have, with several quite vociferous editors, one of whom is an Administrator who was recently put on 'stoppage' for several days!
  • I'm a reader/researcher/option-provider in my working life, and I think that I need to know (i.) THAT I need to look for policies and procedures (I do), and (ii.) WHERE to look (I either do or could find them if I thought I was in a 'situation'), rather than have a word-for-word knowledge.

For consideration. Peter Ellis 04:19, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support. I don't see why it's a necessarily a virtue to involve oneself on others' talk pages. We're building an encyclopaedia, not a chatroom. I urge the others to change their votes. Admin=no big deal, remember? Grace Note 12:57, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. If Peter had asked me, I'd have proposed him without hesitation. He's a self-confessed wikipediholic, and has a track record of respecting both the rules and his fellow wikipedians. In addition, he brings to the job professional skills as a journalist and a record of being an effective mediator in other Internet arenas. His edits include starting and polishing articles in a wide range of fields, starting many new articles and showing himself prepared and competent to do painstaking and uncomplaining repairs to less skilled work by others. He's caused little if any controversy, a born collaborator if ever there was one. I met him face-to-face for the first time last weekend when I visited Canberra where he lives; Wikipedia and an unrelated email list to which we both contribute were the main reasons we arranged the meeting. An ideal candidate. Andrewa
  3. Support. --jag123 02:18, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. Merovingian (t) (c) 09:43, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Weak support. With some reluctance. JuntungWu 13:56, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. He can definitely be trusted with adminpowers. Shanes 18:31, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  7. Give him a chance. We can always de-sysop if something goes wrong. --Lst27 (talk) 21:44, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  8. Of course. ugen64 02:03, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  9. Has established himself as a trustworthy contributor, also Wikipedia is not a chatroom and I like users with high substansive contributions/talk ratio. --Bjarki 13:28, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  10. Slowking Man 23:17, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Peter is a good editor, but possibly hasn't interacted enough with other editors. Out of 1,408 edits in over a year, 64 appear to have been to article talk pages, and 14 to user talk pages other than his own. (Correct me if I've got the figures wrong here, Peter.) I'll definitely support in a couple of months if Peter can demonstrate a bit more interaction with others. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:21, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Like Slim, I'll support in the future if Peter gets more involved with the community. Rje 11:45, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
  3. We're not building a chatroom, true, but the lack of interaction with others makes it hard to see how he'd handle admin responsibilities. Mgm|(talk) 20:35, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Hasn't participated in the Wikipedia namespace enough. Is a good editor, but without interaction with others it is hard to tell whether he would be good admin. Hedley 19:33, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. Interacting with others is a major part of being an admin. Therefore, the lack of interaction makes it difficult to see how he can handle it. Zzyzx11 | Talk 04:24, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. Close, but needs more community involvement. Get involved and there should be no problem supporting next time. Grutness|hello? 00:58, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  7. What Grutness said. My extra points for the selfnom can't quite outweigh lack of community involvement, and I'm thinking especially of Peter citing "I've NOT got caught up, when I could have, with several quite vociferous editors" as his best involvement in dispute resolution. --Bishonen | talk 09:24, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  8. with no personal offense to Peter, I current oppose this nomination. i'd like to see many more edits so I can get a better understanding of his personality and style. Kingturtle 03:05, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

  • Peter Ellis has 1416 total edits: 1061/64 to articles/talk, 175/36 to User/talk, 53/1 to Image/talk, and 26 to Wikipedia. —Korath (Talk) 10:28, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • 14 to user talk that wasn't his own. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:39, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • This user has been here a while, and contributed to many articles and now seems interested in helping with maintenance. Miraculously, he managed not to upset many, if any, or he'd obviously have more edits in the talk namespace, and this is held against him? Wikipedia needs more janitors, not more people with big mouths. --jag123 02:18, 13 Apr 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 don't like conflict, or controversy, and would prefer people to be 'adult'; but I'm willing to be decisive. I hand-code HTML for several site for which I am the 'webservant', but would not get beyond the obvious. I'd much prefer to trawl through the requests and fixes per the Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide. Peter Ellis 05:40, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. John Templeton and the Templeton Prize were obvious yet unrecorded when I wrote them; Stan Grant and John Rudder are continuing their ground-breaking work to resurrect a whole language from extinction (it was effectively no longer spoken) and deserve credit for it; the List of highest towns by country seems like a more useful list than some others I've seen at Wikipedia; and, the Fairey Gannet aircraft and its associated engines were crying out for recognition, and are part of a labour of love that is ongoing in other media.
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've had no conflicts of which I am aware. There have been various interactions, at least one coming as something of a surprise to the writer who was flushed out of lethargy after I began tidying up the Wiki/HTML code after stumbling onto it from one of the "10 random pages" I was doing; but, I've been watching quite a few more users and their interactions than those in which I've participated. Peter Ellis 04:41, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)