Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pjacobi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Pjacobi

final (17/1/0) ending 05:00 7 June 2005 (UTC)

Pjacobi seems to be tireless in his efforts to clean up physics-related Wikipedia articles with POV or factual errors, and judging by his edit history and statement of interests, he appears to be doing similar work in other subjects that I'm less familiar with. In my opinion, granting him adminship would make him an even bigger credit to Wikipedia than he already is. --Christopher Thomas 05:02, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Candidate please indicate acceptance of the nomination here

I accept my nomination, but have some some doubts (see Q&A) whether I'm the ideal admin. Judge yourself with your votes. --Pjacobi 07:50, 2005 May 31 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support, for reasons stated in the nomination text. --Christopher Thomas 05:13, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
  2. Support. I'm wondering why he's not an admin already? -- Sundar (talk · contribs) 05:30, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Of course. El_C 07:48, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support, completely sane. Charles Matthews 10:02, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support, lovely bedside manner with the intellectually challenged, see below. Bishonen | talk 21:45, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
  6. Don't recall seeing much of this user's work, but the answers to questions seem honest and almost self-critical, important virtues for an admin. Everyking 23:11, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
  7. Cool. JuntungWu 05:59, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  8. Aye  =Nichalp (Talk)= 19:10, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support. Maximally. In the ultrastrong topology. He is one of my favorite editors on WP and am thrilled when I see has posted something on a page I have an interest in. I should warn people that Pjacobi is the Anticrank.--CSTAR 23:40, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  10. Support. Ambi 01:36, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support--Duk 16:13, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:36, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  13. Support -- Hoary 04:29, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
  14. Strong support. Great attitude, honest, contributions have meat to them... sure! Give this guy an adminship! Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 18:32, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
  15. Support Only the True admin candidate would deny, etc, etc. Also more Puerto Rico-playing admins can only be a good thing. Alai 17:04, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  16. Support — I like Pjacobi's attitude. Real people make good admins. — mark ✎ 12:13, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  17. Andre (talk) 22:58, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose Does not meet my admin criterion. If you disagree and think that you do and would like me to reconsider, please leave a note on my userpage, jguk 17:43, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. I'm not quite concerned enough to oppose, but my few past dealings with this user have left me too wondering if he's ideal admin material. Ambi 06:57, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC) Changed to support.

Comments

  • I think it's a positive, not negative, thing to have experience of conflict and arguing, and I think I'm likely to support this editor, but it's hard to dig out any history from the way he gives the information below. Pjacobi, could you please provide a selection of diffs for a selection of the conflicts you feel are most illustrative? I hate to ask this, I do know how much work it is, but I really would like to know what actually went down. Not for all the cases by any means, but, uh, a few juicy ones. Bishonen | talk 20:03, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
The talk page Talk:Vril is the nearly exclusive territory of User:Sam Spade and me, no diff necessary in that case, for an article space action see e.g. [1]. Also my three unsuccessfull attempts to close the NPOV issue at ODP are intact on the talk page: [2], [3], [4]. Article space action at Biophoton: [5].
Trying to focus on facts at Testatika: [6], argueing how an alleged perpetual motion machine should be covered by Wikipedia, if at all: [7], argueing at the VfD: [8] (We've met there!).
Sorry, did only a quick scan, I'll be away until 2005-06-04, then I can give more answers.
Pjacobi 20:39, 2005 May 31 (UTC)
Aha, I do remember the meeting! One of us was talking through their hat, funnily enough it wasn't you. There's no need for any more AFAIC, you cover yourself in glory in being patient with my idiocy. :-) Bishonen | talk 21:45, 31 May 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. While I'm regulary on Wikipedia, I don't invest so much time, as an admin should perhaps do, and so the amount of work would be limited. Obviously I'd do vandalism reverts of my usual watch list, but not much different from today. For extra hours available I'd give VfD resolution a try, as I feel this process suffers from (among other things) a hefty backlog. --Pjacobi 07:50, 2005 May 31 (UTC)
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Actually I'm not a great author, and both in absolute numbers and relative to my number of edits, I started only a small number of pages. Filling some gaps (even with stubs) and cleaning up are my preferences.So let me present contributions like giving solemn and Simple vows a place on en.wikipedia (even if only from CathEnc), documenting the Kamenicky encoding, or the Medireview debacle (narrowly escaped VfD), or cleaning up Electroencephalography. --Pjacobi 07:50, 2005 May 31 (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. Actually quite often, in my subjective feeling. Is it approbiate to give the actual names here? I'll do, so you can ask them yourself:
I've tried to argue with those argueing and reverted those who didn't argue. And I pause argueing for several months if no progress is made. I don't see significant changes in this, especially considering that no admin's buttons are to be used in content disputes you are involved in.
Pjacobi 07:50, 2005 May 31 (UTC)