User:Sarcasticidealist

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a Wikipedia user page.

This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sarcasticidealist.

Sarcasticidealist is running in the 2008 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees elections. To ask him questions, go here. To vote, go here (although not until June 1). If you'd like to show your support, please display my userbox on your userpage:

USERBOXII

Wikipedia:Babel

en	This user is a native speaker of English.

fr-2

Cet utilisateur peut contribuer avec un niveau intermédiaire en français.

Search user languages

This user is an administrator on the English Wikipedia. (verify)

This user is a member of the Wikimedia OTRS team. (verify)

This user is an
Eguor admin.

This experienced editor is seeking to adopt new users. (Users requesting adoption)

This user has adopted Grrrlriot.

This user has adopted Geek45.

This user is a member of
WikiProject Parliamentary Procedure.

This user is a member of WikiProject Alberta.

~~they~~

This user considers the singular they to be substandard English usage.

by	The passive voice may be used by this user.

... in.

Ending a sentence with a preposition is something up with which this user will not put.

(s)he

This user supports parallel usage.

. The

This user puts two spaces after a full stop.

A, B, and
A and B

This user uses the serial comma unless its inclusion is confusing.

“…”?

This user thinks “British punctuation is best for quotation marks”. Do you?

@	This user can be reached by email at sarcasticidealist@gmail.com.

This user settled Catan.

This user trades coffee in
Puerto Rico.

This user has a thing for meeple.

This user enjoys writing.

This user is a certified scuba diver

R	This user is a Ravenclaw.

This user still rusts.

It's time that this user began to laugh and cry and cry and laugh about it all again.

You can call this user Al.

22	This user's favourite novel is Catch-22.

This user warns: If you mark that frame an 8, you're entering a world of pain.

EDM

This user is an Edmonton Oilers fan

My name's Steve Smith and I'm from Edmonton, Alberta, Canada (this information, along with my age, has been confirmed by the Wikimedia Foundation office, as part of my candidacy in the 2008 Board of Trustees election). In real life I'm a sometime student at the University of Alberta and Athabasca University (no degree from either, despite eight years of half-hearted effort) and business manager for the U of A's student paper. In August, I will be moving to Fredericton, New Brunswick to study law at the University of New Brunswick. My interests on Wikipedia are primarily surrounding politics and political history, especially that of my hometown.

As with everybody's, my interests encompass more than one topic, so I also occasionally deal with subjects ranging from music to sports to literature. I'm also always happy to make quick grammatical edits (usually involving comma use) to any needy article I come across. Here is a summary of my editing history using User:Interiot's "wannabe kate" tool.

[edit] I am an administrator on English Wikipedia

[edit] What does this mean?

It means that I have a few more buttons than do non-admins. Most notably,

I can delete and undelete pages (and view them when they're deleted)
I can protect and unprotect pages (and edit them while they're protected)
I can block and unblock users

[edit] What doesn't this mean?

There are a lot of misconceptions about what it means to be an admin. I'd like to correct some of them now - being an admin

does not mean that I can employ the admin buttons however I like; in each case there is a policy describing the (narrow) circumstances in which I can use them, and I intend to adhere to those policies
does not mean that my word counts for more in any debate (I quite often see inexperienced editors who are in a content dispute and who are asking for an admin to come in and set down the law: sorry, consensus doesn't work like that)
does not mean that I like deleting articles or blocking users. Very few admins do (some do, and I don't think they tend to make the best admins). I intend to be conservative in the use of both of those powers.

[edit] About the username

Somebody once suggested that my username was inappropriate, so I thought I'd explain it here. The "idealist" bit is pretty straightforward: I believe in great things. That's part of why I'm here: the idea that a group of random people could produce an encyclopedia that was more useful than the Encyclopedia Britannica (and don't kid yourself: Wikipedia certainly is, despite its well-documented shortcomings) is such a fascinating and inspiring idea, I need to be a part of it.

The "sarcastic" bit is the part that gives people pause, I find. They say it sounds like if anybody disagrees with me, or suggests something that I don't like, I'll rip his or her head off. That's not true. First of all, I'm much less sarcastic on Wikipedia than I am in real life, both because years of unfortunate incidents have taught me that sarcasm doesn't convert well to the written word and because in my view WP:CIVIL requires people to be extremely polite; in general being only as polite as you would be while having beers with your best friends is insufficient. Besides that, even in person (when I certainly am sarcastic) I'm a pretty easy guy to get along with once you recognize that, by mocking you, I'm not expressing any negative opinion about you; everybody is ridiculous, and I only behave accordingly. Besides that, I think I'm my own favourite target.

Why the fusion of the two words? When I'd claim to be an idealist, people would often respond with "But you're so sarcastic!" as if there was some kind of contradiction there. There isn't. Sarcasm and cynicism are very different things.

Anyway, please don't be afraid of me. I have endless patience (especially for newcomers), an ability to admit when I'm wrong (see, for example, here - specifically the third paragraph of the four I added), and a great ability to assume good faith.

[edit] Its use elsewhere on the internet

I use Sarcasticidealist for a lot of things, and if you run into a Sarcasticidealist elsewhere on the internet, odds are good that it's me. However, I've also seen it used by at least one other person, specifically on a site called "LiveWire Teen Forums"; that Sarcasticidealist is not me.

[edit] On the Biographies of Living Persons

I've recently been pretty vocal in my view that Wikipedia doesn't do a good enough job of protecting living people it covers, and I may be developing a reputation as a WP:BLP-extremist. I don't really think that's a fair reputation. My interpretation of the content elements of WP:BLP is probably, if anything, a little more permissive than average. I hate hagiography, and I've been on the pro-inclusion-of-properly-cited-unsavoury-material side of a few different content disputes (Peter Yarrow and Craig Cheffins spring immediately to mind). I think that our current policies are probably adequate from a content perspective, in that if every article followed current policy I probably wouldn't have any complaints.

The problem is that the vast majority of our BLP articles are not fully WP:BLP-compliant, and a large number of them are totally non-compliant (by which I mean not just that there aren't enough citations, but that they include false and/or malicious information) for extended periods of time. I am becoming increasingly disgusted with the views by a large number of editors that our current policy of fixing problems as we notice them (or as they're pointed out to us) is adequate. It plainly is not. I have held this view for quite a while, but it has become more pronounced since I've joined the OTRS team, and had the privilege of responding to people who are wondering why Wikipedia says they're child molesters. Right now, the only answer we can give to that is "Sorry, Wikipedia's model means that anybody can post anything they like to your article and, while we'll certainly correct it once we're made aware of it, we won't do anything to prevent it from happening again (unless it reaches a really absurd volume) and we won't let you do anything about it after the fact".

I've come to believe the solution is the mandatory semi-protection of all BLPs and indefinite full protection upon request of the subject, but these proposals have so far been unable to gain the consensus of the community. Until such time as they do, I will support almost any proposal that I consider a step in the right direction, including - reluctantly - WP:OPTOUT (which I don't believe is desirable, and which I don't think would be necessary if my preferred solutions were in place).

[edit] A note on notability

On questions of notability, I'm decidedly inclusionist (though I can be plenty deletionist on WP:NOT, WP:V, and WP:NOR). This means that I occasionally create an article that other editors think falls short of the standard required for WP:N. This doesn't bother me. What does bother me (a little) is when people refrain from AfDing an article I create because they see I'm operating in good faith and don't want to subject my hard work to the AfD process.

I am a strong believer in Wikipedia's consensus basis. Accordingly, I greatly value the AfD process as a means to achieve consensus on questions of notability. If one of the articles I've created is subjected to an AfD, the result will allow me to either refrain from creating other articles on similar subjects, or to do so with a renewed sense of legitimacy. Either way, in my opinion Wikipedia wins.

Accordingly, if you believe that an article I've created falls short of WP:N, please don't hesitate to AfD it. I'll certainly contest it, but I won't take anything personally, nor will I quit Wikipedia in a huff after concluding that my work isn't valued.

[edit] One of my deletion criteria

While I freely admit that this isn't borne out by policy, in borderline deletion cases I tend to evaluate whether there was a conflict of interest involved in the article's creation. My reason for this isn't to discourage or punish editors editing with a conflict of interest; instead, it's because, if an article was created by somebody with no conflict of interest, that means the article was created because somebody found it interesting. And if the article's creator found the subject interesting, odds are that somebody else will too, so the overall value of the encyclopaedia is maximized by keeping the article.

As I say, this is only for borderline cases. Something totally unverifiable, no matter how interesting some people might find it, has got to go. Conversely, a totally COI puff piece about a clearly notable subject gets to stay (but hopefully gets rewritten).

[edit] On RfAs

I participate in RfA debates under any of the following circumstances:

1. I am personally familiar with the candidate,
2. I have seen evidence from an examination of the candidate's contributions, etc., that she/he is unsuitable for administrative powers at this time, or
3. A genuine debate has broken out, in which enough information is presented by both sides to allow me to form an opinion.

In practice, this means that I oppose more RfAs than I support (I oppose all of them in #2, maybe half in #3, and a small minority of those in #1, which is the least common circumstance to arise in any event), but I don't think that I have a particularly narrow view of who should get in; it's just that the ones that pass 80/2/3 or whatever tend not to meet any of my criteria, so I don't bother participating (since I don't feel that I'd have anything to add).

As for what I look for in a candidate, here's a partial (but mostly comprehensive) list:

1. Substantial Wikipedia experience ("substantial" being left to my discretion - mainspace edits need not be a great part of this);
2. Some experience in the WP space relevant to what they intend to spend their time with - WP:AIV for vandal fighters, WP:AFD for AfD and CSD closers, WP:RPP for page protectors, etc;
3. A damned near sterling record of adherance to WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and WP:NPA;
4. A lack of flagrantly incorrect CSD tags, especially under the overused A7; and
5. Thorough, intelligent answers to the questions asked.

[edit] General thoughts on Wikipedia

No, Wikipedia is not a perfect substitute for proper research. Facebook is not a perfect substitute for a social life. A packet of crisps (potato chips) is not a perfect substitute for a cooked, balanced meal. That doesn’t make them worthless, even if some people misguidedly use them as perfect substitutes. - A commenter named "I Am Not Duncan Riley", posting here

There are no shortage of criticisms of Wikipedia out there. A great many are on Wikitruth and Wikipedia Review, even more are found on various Wikipedia user pages, and several more can be found in the mainstream media. Most of the criticisms have two things in common:
1. They're fair, and
2. They overlook the fact that Wikipedia is, despite its well-documented shortcomings, the single most useful informational resource in human history.

Yes, Wikipedia is prone to petty content disputes and edit-warring. Yes, a hundred ignorant editors will get their way in the face of one informed one. Yes, many Wikipedia articles look like they were written by somebody's intoxicated gerbil. Yes, Wikipedia is rife with factual inaccuracies (although these inaccuracies are generally found only on pages for which no conventional encyclopedia would even have an article - for a topic like World War II, Wikipedia's coverage will be as accurate and far more thorough than anything a conventional encyclopedia can provide).

But answer me this question: if you could only use one published source of information for the rest of your life, what would it be?

If you didn't answer Wikipedia, you either have only very specialized informational needs, have been blinded by your hatred of Wikipedia, or are just plain wrong.

[edit] On drama

A lot of people complain about all of the drama on Wikipedia (and my but there's a lot of it). Over my time here I've reached some conclusions about who's to blame, the foremost of which is that if you're spending much time complaining about drama, you're probably part of the problem.

[edit] Articles I've Created

[edit] Current Politicians

Ken Allred, Len Bracko, Christine Brown, James Burrows (politician), Paul Chalifoux, Nolan Crouse, Jack Flaherty, Lorie Garritty, Neil Korotash, Mike Nickel, Richard Plain, Bob Russell (Alberta politician), Linda Sloan

[edit] Past Politicians

[edit] Elections

[edit] Electoral districts

Athabasca-Lac La Biche, Fort McMurray (provincial electoral district)

[edit] Other

Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, Bourinot's Rules of Order, St. Albert City Council, St. Albert Town Council, Edmonton Town Council, Edmonton Bulletin, List of St. Albert mayors, S.E.N.S.I.B.L.E. Choice

[edit] Articles I've Expanded and/or Rewritten

I have substantially expanded each of the following articles (usually to at least double their sizes). This has often entailed a complete rewrite as well.

Edmonton City Council, Alberta municipal elections, 2007, Tony Abbott (Canadian politician), Cindy Ady, Bharat Agnihotri, Harry Dean Ainlay, Moe Amery, Dan Backs, Laurie Blakeman, Kenny Blatchford, Bill Bonko, Guy Boutilier, John R. Boyle, Neil Brown (Canadian politician), Pearl Calahasen, Wayne Cao, Terry Cavanagh, Joseph Clarke, Vincent M. Dantzer, Laurence Decore, Ivor Dent, David Milwyn Duggan, Harry Marshall Erskine Evans, Wilfrid Gariépy, William Antrobus Griesbach, William Hawrelak, Don Iveson, Mel Knight, Matthew McCauley, Sidney Parsons, Cecil John Harry Purves, Ron Ritchie, Elmer Ernest Roper, William Short (Alberta politician), Ed Stelmach

[edit] Userboxes Created

[edit] Other Activities

I'm moderately active at WP:WQA.
I recategorized Category:Candidates for the Canadian House of Commons (the six hundred or so articles that were in there when I started were badly in need of some subcategorization).

[edit] Barnstars, etc.

		The Editor's Barnstar
		Nice article work, particularly on articles dealing with Politics. Good work and happy editing! Malinaccier (talk) 01:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Aprils fools day was a blast. Loads of users lightened up to have good old fashion fun. I want to thank you for taking part in editing this page in particular and even though I may not know you, embrace the same talk pages, or even edit with you in the near future, I'd like to award you this Barnstar for making Wikipedia a fun environment in which to contribute. Until next year. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 12:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		It seems every time i check my watchlist for the latest new pages i've tagged for deletion or vandal-tastic users who i'm waiting to be blocked, there's your username on every line. So this is just a quick thanks and reward for all your hard work deleting csd'd pages and blocking sockpuppets and similar. Enjoy! Ironholds (talk) 19:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thank you very much for reverting vandalism on my talk page. NHRHS2010 \| Talk to me 10:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You deserve a treat for helping provide a neutral third-party opinion on Wikiquette. Thanks! Buddhipriya 00:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The critics agree!

"You rock." - Bearcat 02:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
"I don't know what the cookie thing is about, but I think you deserve one from me as well." - Blanche Poubelle 16:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
"You have help me enormously by your patient guidance..thnak you." - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ross Crea (talk • contribs) 00:36, August 24, 2007 (UTC).
"During my brief interaction with SI, I found him to be a mature and respectful editor. To my delight, after looking thru the contribs, I also see that he is a well-rounded contributor with experience in both the mainspace as well as conflict resolution." - R. Baley (talk) 06:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
"Extremely trustworthy and thorough." - Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 06:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
"Great contributor and answers indicate an all-inclusive knowledge of policy." - Chris.B (talk) 21:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
"Willing to take on controversial topics with an open mind and judical attitude." - Royalbroil 17:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
"helped me out and was apologetic when I asked a follow-up question (apologetic as he missed something, which I didn't even know was something to be "missed"). This humble sense is what every admin needs (and likely had, to some degree, before being admin-ed). I would like to see more like him. I had no intent to accuse him of missing anything, and when I asked the follow-up he took care of it right-quick and everything pleasantly. A future Star Admin in training!!!" - VigilancePrime _{(ed's note: the irony of a quote praising my modesty being found among praise for me that I put on my mainpage should, of course, be apparent to all.)}
"If any of my points within any part of this discussion need clarification, I ask that Sarcasticidealist and RDOlivaw be allowed to do so. I trust their views, and their collective opinion is to be my final word." - LinaMishima (talk) 04:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
"Is it a legal threat for me to tell you that I'll send my lawyers after you if you don't replace the keyboard I just sprayed with Pepsi?" - Gladys J Cortez 04:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
"I can't thank you enough. Your patience with my newness is striking and appreciated. My concept of Wikipedia has changed quite a bit as a result of all of this. Wikipedia has you to thank for that. Wikipedia needs more editors like you. You've answered all of my questions directly and patiently; I'm more impressed with Wikipedia than ever before." - —Preceding unsigned comment added by OregonChange (talk • contribs) 15:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
"Was going through Mayors of Edmonton and noticed the tremendous work you've done on those pages. Just wanted to give you a pat on the back and tell you how awesome you are." - Sasquatch t|c 21:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
"As I sometimes follow your work on Wikiquette, Admin and Admin/Incident pages I think that you deserve a dozen or more barnstars for your patience. Keep up the good work." - MarnetteD | Talk 22:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
"Aside from the misfortune of being from Edmonton, SarcasticIdealist is a good administrator." - Wanderer57 (talk) 05:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ...or, in the alternative, not.

"Don't you have better things to do than assist in the perpetuation of tabloid trash and innuendo? Sad. File with ArbCom if you wish to take this matter any further, as it is obvious that you will never listen to reason and compassion." - FCYTravis 07:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
"idiotic and absurd, pigheaded and redundant." - Scrooby 13:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
"i think your page should be deleted i dont really give a fuck what articles you done or or what you can and cant do your just a fuking cocksmoker who gets off getting reactions out of people fuking COMIC BOOK GUY yea you should change your name to comic book guy you fuking nerd burgler" - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jabba1987 (talk • contribs) 04:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
"I don't ever want to do anything with you just NEVER talk to me again, NEVER go on my user-page, and I will NEVER work with the likes of you." - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Signshare (talk • contribs) 18:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
"Oh great, someone on a Wikipedia power trip. How scary!...I feel bad for you that all you have in life is the ability to block people on an online encyclopedia. Get off your power trip buddy." - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marion Giant 1999 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 28 February 2008
"I have no problem with you personally, I don't really know that much about you, but I do find your actions in this case to be a poor example of how any admin should behave." - Low Sea (talk) 05:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] People I know on Wikipedia

From time to time I stumble across a user who, to my delight and generally surprise, I know in real life. I'm listing them here, because Wikipedia is a social networking site (NOTE TO SELF: Reread that policy later to double check that you have it right).

Charitablemisanthrope (talk · contribs)
Dan Lazin (talk · contribs)
dkaszor (talk · contribs)
DuRuffio (talk · contribs)
Eriklizee (talk · contribs)
Fireworks (talk · contribs)
Nicholas Tam (talk · contribs)
nick.wiebe (talk · contribs)
Phendrana (talk · contribs)
Stampimo (talk · contribs)

[edit] Notable people I have run into in supermarkets