Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Joe Beaudoin Jr.

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Joe Beaudoin Jr.

Final (21/3/0) ending 00:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Joe Beaudoin Jr. (talk · contribs) – I remember thinking he should be an admin after his first 100 edits. He is a mature and levelheaded guy who seems to always do the right things in heated situations as well as being well accustomed to both the technical and the social ways of wikipedia. But my main motivation for wanting his adminship is the work he's doing on pages with adult content. It's a corner of wikipedia lacking admins of his caliber. Seeing all the work he's doing in keeping copyvios and obviously unsuitable images off wikipedia (there are lots of them in that corner), I'd like him to have access to admin-tools to make his (and our) job easier. He's been here since February, and for the edit-counters he now has over 1250 edits, as well as 200 tag-deleted pages/images. I believe it's enough in this case. Shanes 22:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 23:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support as nominator. Shanes 22:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support AGREED.Gator (talk) 00:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Joyous | Talk 00:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. --NormanEinstein 02:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. HGB 03:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support--MONGO 03:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. King of All the Franks 03:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support, unlikely to abuse administrator tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. Agree with all that Shanes said. Joe is helpful to newcomers, reasonable with solving problems, and dedicated to improving this project. He would make a fine administrator. Olessi 10:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Yup. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 11:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - sufficient experience, and seems sensible enough.
    t c 15:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  12. Support pass him a mop! --rogerd 17:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Has done some good work with templates and is open-minded to the suggestions of others. Youngamerican 17:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-15 07:54
  15. Support. Based on his contributions, seems fair and impartial with a good knowledge of process. It will be a great boost to have a competent admin who deals with pornography articles.
    e ] 16:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  16. Support if no objections are raised other than newness and edit counts (and the topics he chooses to edit). —Simetrical (talk) 03:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Go for itThe Land 20:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support -- getcrunkjuice 01:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. El_C 12:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. -- DS1953 talk 21:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. --Kefalonia 12:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose - far too new, infrequent edits. Almost all of his edits are pornography related [1]. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 18:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. weak Oppose I'd like at least 2,000 edits. freestylefrappe 21:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose — A fairly new and infrequent editor. Hasn't made any case that the additional tools that come with being an administrator are necessary for this user's activities. User:PZFUN/signature 21:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


Neutral

Comments

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 check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A. As mentioned by Shanes, I would focus my efforts on information regarding pornography on Wikipedia, as I believe that this area needs to be worked on. This means ensuring that information listed on Wikipedia is as correct as possible and that vandalism, copyvios, and advertisements are removed from such articles. (As such articles, by their nature, attract vandals far more easily than an article on
Counter Vandalism Unit. I mainly deal with vandalism done on pornographic articles, and to an extent on articles outside of pornography (such as John F. Kennedy). Therefore, I would deal with identifying vandalism, warning vandals and blocking users -- I aim to block users as a last resort. I would only block users on sight if the edit was clearly meant as an act of vandalism and was on a scale too large to ignore. Other than fighting vandalism, I would work on deleting unused images and going through Articles that need to be wikified. Depending on the work flow, I would help clean out "lonley pages
" and go through the unused images.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Actually, the
Wraith (Stargate) article comes to mind, simply because I turned a lackluster stub into a full fledged article. (I had listed the article on Requests for expansion, which received less than enthusiastic support -- so I decided to be bold and do it myself. I am generally pleased with the progress the article has made since my major revision.) However, I am also pleased with some of the templates I've created, which include the Female adult bio
which summarizes the most important information regarding pornographic performers.
Other than that, I am generally pleased with all of my edits -- my only regret is that I am limited by what information has already been published.
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?
A. The only conflict I've had was over the Victoria Zdrok article regarding the quantity of pictures used within the article. However, the issue was amicably discussed, with the end result being that the contributor and I got along famously.
When dealing with conflicts, I believe it is best to distance myself from the situation and seek outside parties for their views. Yes, it is a difficult task, but people need to realize that the actions of one person can change the Wiki on a major level -- just take a look at the current issue surrounding the
John Siegenthaler
. One person not only damaged the good name of Siegenthaler, but brought negative media attention to Wikipedia just for a joke.
As for the stress piece -- let's just say that I would take a vacation before I let the stress amount to unimaginable levels. Any other questions?

MutterErde 19:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

or here:

MutterErde 17:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Joe_Beaudoin_Jr.&oldid=1138650723"