Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Raymond arritt - Wikipedia


Article Images
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Final: (88/0/0); ended 00:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Raymond arritt (talk · contribs) - Raymond arritt is one of our best editors on global warming and related articles. I had simply assumed he was an admin until a recent comment of his noted otherwise. He edits in an area where the admin bit is often a necessity, and his personality is more-or-less unflappable. I think he would make an excellent admin. Raul654 00:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Thank you. Raymond Arritt 02:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

edit

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I want to help out where help is needed. My perception is that the present admin corps is overextended, which leads to backlogs in some areas; for example, as I write this there are unresolved 3RR reports that are several days old. In areas where I have little prior experience I would hang back and watch for a while to see how things are done before leaping in. My concept of an admin is a regular editor who has some special abilities to help out by protecting articles, keeping out vandals, and the like. There are some folks who are essentially full-time admins, and I respect that, but I think that remaining active as an editor gives one a perspective of what it's like down in the trenches.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Although I have expertise in a specific discipline and that's perhaps what comes to people's minds when they look at my contributions, what I really enjoy is polishing prose so that it's clear, concise, and effective. Strunk and White is my fountainhead. It's often said that Wikipedia does reasonably well on information content but that the prose tends to be verbose or unclear. I think that's a fair criticism and we could do more to spruce things up. An example of my work is an extensive copyedit that I did on Germany that helped to bring it up to FA.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Stress? No. For me stress is when you're diagnosed with cancer, not when someone insults you on Wikipedia. Early in my experience as an editor I found this friendly comment on my talk page, so I've long known that it can be rough-and-tumble here. And there are times when I've been disillusioned with the project for various reasons. I have edited in some controversial areas and there have been occasions when I've been less tactful than I should have. Conversely there have been times when I've defended editors who have the opposite take on an issue than myself. Often on the global warming related articles there are people who make remarks on the talk pages with seemingly little purpose other than to vent about how it's all a liberal plot or some such. I think that one of the best ways to deal with provocations is to shrug and walk away. I'm glad to let someone else have the last word as long as it doesn't negatively affect the article.
4. Optional question from SlimVirgin:
Hi Raymond, I have a concern about your intervention recently in WP:V, where you seemed to be advocating "scientific point of view" (SPOV). I completely agree with you that academic sources are almost always better than non-academic ones. Still, I worry about editors who want to lay down a rule that says non-academic sources may never be used in certain areas, no matter how reliable they are, unless academic sources are not available — any such rule would lead to SPOV, not NPOV. Yet that seemed to be the position you were advocating. Can you clearly state your position on this issue, please, as it pertains to the policies? That is, do you believe the policies should formally state that only academic sources may be used in certain articles? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 05:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make this question harder, please SV and you may displease the rest of us... I thought your view as expressed (you seemed to say that notability was less important than credibility on matters of science: so we have to put Al Gore's views on global warming below those of a peer reviewed paper written by a post-doc in Physics Letters) were totally on the ball whereas SV was taking a position which was theoretically pure but impractical given the nature of science and those who comment on it... so the 6 million dollar answer is? --BozMo talk 07:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My answer is essentially what BozMo said. While non-academic sources are sometimes useful even in scientific fields, where the two conflict it's dangerous to state that non-academic and academic sources are on an equal footing. There's a trend these days for some scientists to argue a point of view in the popular press, making scientifically indefensible statements that would never survive peer review. (I could give some names, but will refrain from doing so in respect of WP:BLP.) Those statements then get picked up and used by policymakers -- and some Wikipiedia editors -- to argue against mountains of peer-reviewed evidence. Stating that the mainstream press is just as reliable as Physical Review Letters takes us away from WP:NPOV by providing excessive weight for small-minority positions. Raymond Arritt 12:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So do you then think that the state and development of popular opinion on a topic should not be covered?DGG (talk) 20:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Raymond, thanks for the reply, but you answered a question I didn't ask. I specifically didn't ask whether you believe academic sources are usually better than non-academic ones in certain areas, because I believe they are myself, and in fact most editors do. My question was: "do you believe the policies should formally state that only academic sources may be used in certain articles?" You gave the impression that you believe this during a recent discussion on WP:V, which is why I'm requesting clarification. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 20:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I understand the question better now. The short answer is "no." The longer answer is that the suitability of sources depends on the specific issue and not on the broad topic of the article. A good example would be evolution. Material from the mainstream press would be appropriate for defining the public perception of evolution. In the same article, material from the mainstream press would not ordinarily be appropriate for making points about strictly scientific aspects of the problem in contradiction of the academic literature. (Press reports are often used as citations of convenience for scientific findings reported in the literature, in part because the original journal articles often require paid subscriptions or are otherwise inaccessible to many readers. I think that's broadly OK, though still risky. Scientists often complain of being misquoted in the press; a colleague is presently wrestling with an article that used one of her papers to make the opposite point of what she actually wrote.) I'd love to replace the policies with a simple directive to use the best available sources for the matter at hand, but unfortunately that isn't practical. If I still haven't answered your question please let me know. Raymond Arritt 21:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, you have answered it, thank you, and I agree with your position. My only concern was that you might be advocating some kind of formal prohibition on non-academic sources in some areas, which a couple of other editors appeared to favor during that discussion. Thank you for clearing it up, and for the detailed responses. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 22:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from SMcCandlish (talk):

5. Selecting one item listed at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion that arguably does not belong there, explain (citing WP:CSD and/or WP:DP in detail) why it should not be speedily deleted. (If all of them appear to be appropriate candidates, say so and I'll think of replacement test of admin judgement.) Your personal, subjective opinion of the value of the item (how well written it is, the importance of the topic beyond satisfying WP:CSD's notability requirements, and so forth) should not be a factor.
A I will begin by saying that I have almost no experience with WP:CSD. As stated in my answer to Q1, if I were to get involved in a new area I would prefer to begin by monitoring it for a while to see how things are done. Nonetheless I will attempt to answer the question. In looking through the articles on that page it appears that Hindustan movement possibly should not not be speedy deleted. The reason given for speedy deletion is copyright infringement. The present version of the article does assert permission but in looking through the history there was no assertion of copyright permission at the time the article was nominated for deletion, and even now there is some question as to whether the stated permission is adequate. The article qualifies as a keep under all other criteria as far as I can see (notability is asserted, and so on).
Looks like it got deleted anyway, but you demonstrated adminly thinking patterns in my view. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Selecting one item listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion that has a strong majority !vote count to delete, but on faulty justifications (misunderstanding of policy, "I don't like it", etc.), explain, citing relevant policies, guidelines, procedures and/or precedent, why the article should be kept (alternatively, invert delete and keep; or select a CfD, TfD, or MfD instead if nothing in AfD seems to fit this pattern, though that is highly unlikely; or select an AfD that has already closed as "delete" that you think should not have been, and has not been sent to WP:DRV yet. As above, keep your personal opinion of the subjective value of the item out of the equation, as this is a demonstration of administrative not editorial judgement.

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Raymond arritt before commenting.

Support

  1. Support - You're really not an admin yet? thought you were, as well. Raymond has been an outstanding editor, remaining civil while editing articles on the contentious topic of global warming, and is well-suited to be an admin. --Aude (talk) 01:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. Also suprised you're not an admin. Reviewing your contributions confirms my belief that you should be. WjBscribe 01:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Pretty damn obvious, really. Daniel 01:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oh yeah, good choice. Civil, sensible, well-spoken, intelligent, great editor, should do good things. ~ Riana ⁂ 01:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Raul nominating...that's something you don't see everyday! Giggy UCP 01:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Per the above. Kwsn(Ni!) 01:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support A very impressive editor. Definately gets my support. Captain panda 02:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support That many edits to global warming and no stress? Impressive contributions. the_undertow talk 02:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support An excellent editor, and a voice of reason even in contentious topics. Hal peridol 02:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strong support per his record and answers above. He is another real editor who works effectively on controversial articles. Vsmith 02:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support I support a full time editor who does some admin work --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 03:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support mop is well-deserved for this user. Keep it up, (→O - RLY?) 03:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Strong support, per good answers to questions and my experience interacting with Raymond. We need more admins with experience editing controversial topics and keeping cool. The lot of an expert editing a controversial topic is not an easy one, but Raymond has fulfilled it admirably and will do good work with the tools. Absolutely no concerns. MastCell Talk 03:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support It is time to give this user the mop. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Apparently, long overdue. If people say they thought you were an admin already, that shows that you are an exemplary editor, worthy of the mop. J-stan Talk 03:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. Candidate appears to be a dedicated contributor and should make a good admin. Majoreditor 03:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support I think the tools will go to good use here. Jmlk17 03:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. Who will be next week's global warming veteran? Dragons flight 03:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Can't see why you're not an admin already. (aeropagitica) 04:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. -- Y not? 04:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support A very useful editor to have around --Nethgirb 07:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. Very patient, very knowledgable, and, to quote someone from another RfA: "far more sensible than me". --Stephan Schulz 07:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Strong Support Quite a shock to learn not already an admin: one of the most sensible people in the whole of Wikipedia/ --BozMo talk 07:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support this outstanding user. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 08:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Solid editor, calm demeanour, should be good with the tools. Orderinchaos 10:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Experienced in all the right areas. Lradrama 12:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Of course —AldeBaer (c) 14:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Strong Support conspicuously admin material. —Anas talk? 14:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support I like your general attitude to wikipedia, and found your answer the optional question to be very well put. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 16:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support see no reason to not support.--Jersey Devil 17:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support—solid contributions, good answers to questions. --Paul Erik 17:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support semper fictilis 18:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support -- More than fit for the promotion. Good luck to you.The Kensington Blonde Talk 19:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    #Support A great editor! —Moldymort 20:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC) Vandalism-only anon account. Raul654 21:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support - Balanced, and capable of working in emotionally dicey subject areas. Hiberniantears 21:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Strong Support. Agree with the above sentiment. We have a few simliar interests, so I've seen his edits for a while. Wikipedia would do well to have more like him. R. Baley 21:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support - good user, who could use the tools. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support, I see no reason why not. Wizardman 00:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support, good 'pedia builder. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Strong support Echoing R. Baley above, Wikipedia would do more than well to have him. Our most urgent and desperate need is for a thousand of his kind. --JayHenry 01:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support; absolutely yes. More Raymonds and less lunatics. Good answer to No. 3 by the way; we need more here with that sense of perspective. Antandrus (talk) 02:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. Commitment to building a neutral PoV encyclopedia. Espresso Addict 04:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support on perspectives and "adminship=no big deal". –Outriggr § 05:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support although I'm not a prescriptivist, I liked the answers to questions 2 and 3. I have interacted with Raymond arritt on policy pages. Not only is he a prolific article writer judging by his contributions, he is also a consensus-builder, an editing approach that gets sadly ignored too often on Wiki. We need more admins like him. — Zerida 06:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. Fair-minded. - Merzbow 07:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support finally someone who is interested in dealing with the 3RR backlog. Perspicacite 09:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Strong Support - How can someone oppose a crat Nom..and anyways you want to get rid of that evil 3RR Backlog problem for good..Go Ahead..Make my Day ;)--Cometstyles 11:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC) ..[reply]
  47. Support —I'll put the support stamp on this one! and per User:Outriggr —MJCdetroit 12:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Strong Support Piling on. Orangemarlin 14:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. I particularly liked the response to the optional question. One factor worth bearing in mind when weighing sources is the state of science journalism. It takes a relatively rare combination of skills to understand complex scientific concepts and to convey those ideas accurately to the general public. Even when a reporter has those skills his or her editor may lack them, and factual errors may creep into the manuscript before press time. This is a frequent problem in the subfield. The solution of using specialty journals as sources to express the science and general readership publications to convey the public perception of science is right on target. DurovaCharge! 14:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. support per Durova, nom, Captain Panda, Riana and others. JoshuaZ 15:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support Good answer to Q4; this two-tiered approach should inform our policy. --John 15:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. I'm also happy with the answer and grateful for the detailed response. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 16:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support, gladly; a breath of fresh air, IMO. ... Kenosis 16:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support another decent nominator/decent candidate case here. :) Acalamari 16:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support, a good editor with a solid record. Tim Vickers 17:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. ElinorD (talk) 17:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support —Ruud 19:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support Will make an excellent administrator.--MONGO 21:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support Definitely. •Jim62sch• 22:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Jaranda wat's sup 22:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Strong Support He also is an excellent copyeditor (a veteran of Beatles editing) and that skill is not always found but very welcome in admins. Tvoz |talk 00:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Strong Support Knowledgable and cool-headed. We need more like Raymond. FeloniousMonk 00:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support. Nominated by raul - definately a great candidate! Apart from that, everything looks good. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 00:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support. Seen him around occasionally and he seems trustworthy enough. The user page alone merits enthusiastic support for the sanity cabal. BanyanTree 01:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support. @pple 09:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support.Aminz 08:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support.Lustead 13:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support --Walter Siegmund (talk) 14:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support - I have no reservations about this editor. John Carter 16:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support especially for Q4. — Scientizzle 16:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Cliched Support. --kingboyk 21:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support - He is good. Brusegadi 23:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support - Looks solid enough for the tools. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 02:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support excellent editor, will mop responsibly. Peacent 09:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support - No reason not to. Jehochman Talk 19:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support Raymond is my idea of a responsible contributor. Give him the buttons. Odd nature 20:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support Per everybody else. Dfrg.msc 07:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support Per answer to Q4. He will make a good admin. --Hirohisat Talk 07:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild 07:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  81. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 09:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support Demonstrates adminly thinking, calm/civil demeanor, balance, caution and is not over-eager to seize the mindblowing raw power of the mopbucket. ;-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support, intelligent and helpful editor who has been patient and principled with some of our most difficult material. Marskell 15:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Very obvious that this user is made of win. Full support. Deliciously Saucy 22:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools.Edits are all non contraversial. Harlowraman 10:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support I highly doubt he will abuse the tools. Politics rule 19:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support Seen you about, had thought you were one. Ceoil 00:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support. Zaxem 00:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

  1. Neutral Pending answer to Q4--Hirohisat Talk 06:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Changed to support[reply]
    Neutral. I'm concerned at Raymond's failure to answer question 4, though I feel I asked it clearly enough. Will wait to see whether the issue is clarified. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 20:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral pending answer to Q4. --John 21:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.