Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/P3d0

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Doradus

Final (11/4/1) ended 06:15 09 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Note: at the time of this request, Doradus was User:P3d0. This explains the concerns expressed below about the handle.

I've been contributing to Wikipedia for a year and a half, but have become a true Wikipedian in the last three months, during which time I have made about half of my 600+ contributions, and have begun to make more of an effort to do the more routine maintenance tasks, like scanning recent edits for vandalism, that keep the site working smoothly. Doradus 06:17, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

Support

1. Sarge Baldy 08:39, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC) I really don't know where this "not enough experience" stuff came from. I was voted in (on a self-nomination) with 778 edits in 5 months and relatively little community involvement. No one even thought to mention my edit count but to say it looked good. Similarly, other people got in on self-nominations with as few as 500 edits at that time. This editor has been here a year and a half, has a significant (if not monstrous) number of edits, and has generally socialized to the expectations of Wikipedia with no actual complaints to be made about his contributions. Darn kids these days with their edits counts, hmmpf.
2. Why not? anthony 警告 13:51, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
3. As Sarge Baldy said, I don't understand why edit count is so important. More edits do not necessary make someone better.. Nadavspi | talk 14:53, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
4. 1.5 years + grunt work = a relatively consistent support. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 15:37, 2004 Nov 2 (UTC)
5. Seems a strong candidate, though I think would do better with a regular nom. Andre (talk) 17:20, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)
6. I have some minor concerns here and there, but nothing serious enough for me to withhold my support. I really like the World Wide Web diff given below. - RedWordSmith 20:04, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
7. User does good work. I don't automatically hold self-noms to a higher standard, being one myself. I suspect a lot of nominations are based on deletion doctrine anyway, and I see nothing wrong with his almost nonexistant participation in VfD. He does appear to watch new pages occassionally, and his copyediting is scattered enough I can only assume he does significant browsing and random page edits. I count P3d0 as an honest and high-quality editor who is not going to leave the project. His duration alone attests to that. Cool Hand Luke 20:06, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
8. Good user. --Lst27 (talk) 21:58, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
9. Neutral for now. I've looked at your edits and they look like good work. However the number of edits is fairly low for an admin candidate, especially the number in the Wikipedia: namespace. This isn't necessarily a reason for me to say no, but I'll await your answers to questions and any further comments before making my mind up. Shane King 07:45, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC) I'm satisfied with those answers. Shane King 23:07, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)
10. JOHN COLLISON [ Ludraman] 23:37, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
11. Excellent contributions. Wile E. Heresiarch 23:41, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I do see you doing a lot of very nice work on articles, and glad to see you've returned more consistently. Unfortunately, I think that you haven't quite spent enough time "behind the scenes", such as discussing or voting on policy, or dealing with maintenance. That knowledge is very necessary to being an admin, and right now I can't really tell enough about you. Get a few more edits and some exposure to the Wikipedia: space, and I think we'll see you fly through this in a couple months. Sorry that now isn't the time. -- Netoholic @ 07:37, 2004 Nov 2 (UTC)
2. Good work, my friend, but you do not quite meet my personal standards for supporting an adminship candidate. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:30, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
3. Not enough edits. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 19:54, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
4. 600 edits is nice, and it's very good to see you contribute to Wikipedia, but I think you should collect some more experience first, so I'm voting against you now. Sorry - try again later when you have more experience, and I'll support you. -- Schnee 03:03, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Neutral:

1. What I've seen has been good, but I haven't seen enough. Try again in a month or two. —No-One Jones ^(m) 07:43, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Comments

• 607 edits since July 2003. Cool Hand Luke 08:09, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Browsing through your history, I was surprised to see we have interacted. You correctly chastized me for talking about an article in the article itself (it was garbage at the time anyhow, but that's still a no-no). It seems you've been involved in some featured articles like Roche limit, but I'm waiting to hear what your proudest accomplishment is below. Cool Hand Luke 08:09, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• I am slightly concerned about this user's choice of handle, and while maybe innocent (see: C-3PO) as Adam Bishop has pointed out to me it still doesn't sit as acceptable for someone in a position of respect. -- BesigedB 23:00, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • It's only my initials (Patrick Doyle) fit into C3P0. I picked it for use on Slashdot on the spur of the moment when my usual handle (doylep) was taken. --Doradus 16:11, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
• Sounds like the only objections are lack of edits, and poor choice of handle. I concede the latter point, but I don't really have any intention of changing it now. As for lack of edits, have you all seen lots of people get adminship after 600 good edits, and then demonstrate that they should not have had it? Otherwise I don't see any concrete rationale for the lack-of-edits objection. --Doradus 16:37, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Patrick, I think the rationale is not that many admins have been promoted at that level and become abusive, but rather that a number of our "problem users" began with relatively quiet careers, and people are gunshy now about promoting users with under 1,000 or even 1,500 edits (and a number of editors set the standards higher). I don't know you, so I'm not voting, but 600 isn't too few for me (though it's on the edges). A note, though, on the username -- I encourage you to rethink the issue. A name change is not difficult to procure (they'd move over all your contribution history, etc.), and others have done it in the past based on this kind of issue. At the very least, I encourage you to alter your signature so that your name appears differently on talk pages -- that might limit criticism to some extent. It is your name, of course, and I can understand not wanting to be forced to change, but I think in this case there is at least some basis for concern. Jwrosenzweig 23:09, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Ok thanks for the info. I'm on my way to becomming "Patrick D". --Doradus 03:46, Nov 9, 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. I will certainly do copyediting and reverting vandalism. I seem to enjoy those for some perverse reason. I can't be sure what other chores I will want to do until I try them, but I expect that I will watch Votes for Deletion, and fix cut-and-paste moves.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A. I tend to do more copyediting than anything else. Fairly often I find that opening paragraphs sound like they were written by committee, and I like to tighten them up, as I did with World Wide Web seen here. I was also pleased to see Roche limit rise from a two-paragraph blurb to a front-page article once I nominated it for Featured Article status. Again, my contributions were mostly copyediting in that case.

I forgot to mention, I like to try to give an impression of some of the staggeringly large quantities encountered in astronomy. I added the Texas Stadium comparison to Betelgeuse. I also added Getting_to_Venus as well as 4179 Toutatis#Just_how_close_is_that?. --Doradus 13:40, Nov 7, 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. My first conflict was the worst. There was a well-meaning user who was apparently not a native English speaker, and continually degraded computer science-related articles to the point that they became unstructured and incomprehensible. Before I knew of this user, I found one such article and took it upon myself to do a major cleanup. After a short time, my hard work was unrecognizable, and the article had once again degenerated into a mess, whereupon I made the following comment, and left Wikipedia for several weeks:

Oh, it is a frustrating task to edit an article that Taku has set his sights on. I took some pains a while back to clean this article up, and now a dozen Taku-edits has left it almost as disarrayed as it was before I started. It does not look at all like an encyclopedia article any more, but a collection of random thoughts tangentially related to the general topic of subprograms. Well, I yield to you, Taku. You can have this article. This is too much like work for me.

Another comment I am not proud of was in Talk:Roche limit, where I used the phrase "I'm sorry to say I think Mr. Connolley might be right, even if he is coming across as a smug dork."

I hope this is the worst behaviour you can expect from me. As an admin, I'd certainly be more careful to set a good example.