Misplaced Pages

:Requests for adminship/Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Piedras grandes (talk | contribs) at 15:48, 17 January 2006 (→[]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 15:48, 17 January 2006 by Piedras grandes (talk | contribs) (→[])(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

(20/1/1) ending 05:11 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talk · contribs) – Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (real name David Mertz) has been a Wikipedian since July 2004. He has a Ph.D. in philosophy and is a columnist for several online publications. As a Wikipedian, he is an excellent and well rounded editor with a very solid understanding of Misplaced Pages content guidelines. In my experience, David manages to get his point across with good humor, impeccable logic and and a nice disposition to other editors. With 1,400 edits on the Misplaced Pages namespace alone, David has shown that he cares enough for the project to earn the sysop wings. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Accept

Support

  1. Support as nominator. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Strong Support He's already been in the fray several times(the first time I saw at Ward Churchill, but that's just the tip of the iceberg), and wouldn't run for admin because of something he said about another user, only to have that user basically say it wasn't any big deal and to forget the past We need more admins of Lulu's integrity. Karmafist 05:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Edit-conflict support, trustworthy user with plenty of experience. --TantalumTelluride 05:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support 172 05:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support My support is strong.--MONGO 05:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support. A good guy (and cute too - although the looming half-face in the background kind of creeps me out). ntennis 05:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support. --Samuel Wantman 07:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support. Good and responsible contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support. Sarge Baldy 08:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support. I honestly thought Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters was already an admin. We need more Lotus-Eaters as admins. JIP | Talk 09:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support good editor to have. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support – Phædriel ♥ - 10:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support. Some candidates are good, but this one's a Lulu! Grutness...wha? 11:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support: seeing him from time to time, including long back on the talk page of Jawaharlal Nehru. --Bhadani 12:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support. All interactions have been positive. -Colin Kimbrell 14:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 14:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support. —Quarl 2006-01-17 14:56Z
  19. Support. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs Germany 15:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support but please use your edit summaries more. I realize its kind of a trivial thing, but it doesn't take that much more effort to put *something* there to describe your actions. All other aspects of my interactions with you have been positive. :) --Syrthiss 15:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support Never hurts to be supportive--Piedras grandes 15:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Weak Oppose. While I can't remember the primary reason I wanted to oppose, while looking through the contribs, I often saw lots of small edits on the same article. Also, this edit summary was a bit questionable. Of course, I myself have never done either of these things... *trailing off weakly* --SarekOfVulcan 07:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose I can't in good judgment support someone like this--Piedras grandes 15:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. More edit summaries please. They are helpful to your fellow contributor on whose watchlist or recent changes list you may happen to pop up. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

0. I'm moderately surprised at the nomination. I had intended to let someone who has asked me about it nominate me, maybe in another month or so. But since Jossi nominated, I'll accept the nomination. My caveat is that in opposing the nomination of User:MONGO (who has since proved an excellent administrator, and whom I've worked with productively), I stated a standard of "six months of unblemished behavior"... in my own opinion, I made a few intemperate comments last August, that I think didn't show my best face. So this slightly jumps the gun on my own standard.

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Misplaced Pages backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

My editing has been somewhat accidental in the sense that I have latched on to various topics simply because I recognize articles (or sets of related ones) can be made better. I tend to believe that this attitude makes for overall better editorship than does coming in with a strong interest in one particular topic. The pages I edit are ones where I have a commitment to the quality of the article rather than to the importance of topic (or to some particular approach to the topic). Of course, there are some things I have some background knowledge about, and there is some usefulness of utilizing that knowledge.
As an admin, I'd be largely interested in doing what editors think I might be most useful for; which probably largely amounts to informal mediation on topics, and generally cooling tempers and guiding conflicts towards mutually agreeable NPOV contents. To this end, having the option of using the various admin capabilities (page protection, semi-protection, temporary blocks for egregious behavior, etc) provides a bit of a stick to go with the carrot of article improvement; obviously, such formal mechanisms need be used parsimoniously though.

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

Recently especially, I think I've accomplished quite a bit in improving the evidentiary standards of a number of lists I've worked with. I start with a certain suspicion of lists and categories, since they are sometimes used for "commentary by alleged commonality"; but in the best case, lists and categories can provide useful navigation... the key is good annotation of included items, slavish conformance to evidentiary suspiciousness, and clear membership criteria.

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?

I've sometimes been annoyed by what I perceive as POV-mongering and other behavior where editors put themselves ahead of the good of articles. I've learned over the last several months to rely on trying to get outside neutral editors involved rather than further a direct conflict. Initially, I insist on the various WP guidelines and policies; but at a certain point I recognize that my own persona and history can get in the way of bringing other editors to a full understanding of neutrality and verifiability, and know when to step aside to cooperate with third parties... and symmetrically, when to step in as such a third party to soothe other editors' conflicts.

4. Further rambling.

I decided to look at just how much editing I've done.
Username               Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters
Total edits            7286
Image uploads          28 (23 cur, 5 old)
Distinct pages edited  1007
Edits/page (avg)       7.24
Deleted edits          74 (browse)
First edit             2004-07-12 03:17:27
Edits by namespace 	
  Namespace    Edits
  Articles     2694
  Talk         1804
  User          220
  User talk     943
  Project       964
  Project talk  503
  Image          19
  Image talk      2
  Template        9
  Template talk  20
  Category       52
  Category talk  56

5. Your user name is very memorable. How did you choose it and what is its significance?

How to make this (relatively) short? The name dates from about 1994, used on Usenet on mailing list discussions. "Lulu" is chosen as a "frivolous" or "disreputable sounding name (in reference to a literary tradition including Wedekind's Lulu plays; and also several movies like Wild at Heart and Something Wild). Also usually perceived as a woman's name. In both respects it plays against a usual assumption of "discursive authority", which has aspects of both sexism and other hierarchical status markers. It's an "anti-authority" name. But then, it's also close to "Lula", whom I admired since his first campaign (and I am so pleased is now prez of a place I've never been to, but seems fascinating).
The "Lotus-Eaters" is a reference to Homer's Oddyssey, and the draw of sombulescent animality. But it's by way of Horkheimer and Adorno's analysis of Homer marking the transition to modernity (it's a funny thing to claim, if you think about it... but y'know, those Freudo-Marxists are funny sorts). It sort of continues the same meme as the "Lulu" part.

6. Are you familiar with WP:AN and WP:AN/I? Have you participated in those discussions in the past and do you plan to in the future?

I have participated a bit already, but only transiently. I think if promoted to admin I will participate more. I'm not quite certain of all the formal rules, but it felt like it was improper to opine too much in the administrators' noticeboard without being an admin myself, so I only passed by mostly.

7. Why so many small edits?

Not wishing to influence SarekOfVulcan's vote, or anyone else's unduly, I think one thing he comments on is subject to rather straightforward clarification. I find WP servers often to be flakey, and for edit conflicts to arise fairly frequently. Therefore, I tend to save quite frequently during an editing session simply to avoid losing partial edits. Even if I know I intend to change 10 sentences, I will often make each of the ten changes one-by-one, saving at each step. Moreover, inasmuch as I do make edit comments (Oleg Alexandrov is probably right that I should be more consistent on this), this allows me to document each of those hypothetical 10 changes, in case some other editor likes 9 of them, but dislikes one. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

8. You have edited the article on yourself. What is your view on such practices, and what do you have to say to those who object to it as a very bad thing? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 13:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)