Premeditated Chaos

Talk to me - Contributions - Awards -- ♠PMC♠ -- Projects - Blocks enacted - Pages deleted

About Me

I'm Premeditated Chaos, also known as PMC. On IRC I go by PMC_x. The accounts PMC, PMC_x, and Premedicated Chaos are my doppelgangers. I use this name exclusively on Wikipedia, so in the unlikely event that you come across another Premeditated Chaos elsewhere, it isn't me. I have been a Wikipedian since 2003, and an admin since 2004. I was active on-and-off for a number of years thereafter until returning in January 2017. In December 2017 I was elected to the Arbitration Committee for a two-year term, and as a result I also hold the checkuser and oversight permissions.

Unlike many editors, I don't have a favorite topic that serves as a focus for my edits. Sometimes I update and reference articles based on books I'm reading, but quite often I've just found something that both interests and annoys me enough to want to look into it more. I am particularly fond of digging up hard-to-find scraps of information about obscure things. I have a habit of chasing topics down a rabbit hole - correcting an error here can lead me to another one there, which sometimes leads to rewrites or brand-new articles if I get really interested.

I am often found de-orphaning articles, particularly from the February 2009 category. I've recently developed an interest in trimming excessive plot summaries, which I find weirdly satisfying. I occasionally comment on deletion discussions, especially if they are at a stalemate. You can occasionally find me clearing CAT:CSD and CAT:PROD.

I'm quite fond of list articles, probably as a result of my de-orphaning efforts. I have created several new lists, and actively maintain several others. Despite what my article creation habits might indicate, I don't particularly care for or know much about beetles, plants, or algae, but they are frequently found as orphans and also happen to be very easy to de-orphan.

Views and Philosophy

I consider myself a mergist with a bent towards deletionism, particularly when it comes to stubs imported from old public domain sources like Chambers' Cyclopædia, Encyclopedia Britannica, and the Catholic Encyclopedia. That's not to say that these sources aren't useful, but many of the remaining articles we have which were imported from those sources would do better merged elsewhere.

When responding to requests for undeletion, I typically prefer not to restore deleted material to mainspace unless there are reliable sources available to indicate that we shouldn't have deleted the item in the first place. I am usually willing to restore good-faith content that lacks notability to draft or userspace, or to email a copy. I will almost never restore promotional or UPE content for any reason.

I believe SNGs should be used narrowly, to exclude non-notable content rather than to force the inclusion of content on a broad scope. I support the expansion of the NCORP criteria, and would support most other efforts to expand SNGs to be more exclusive. We should be focused on making our existing content better rather than just making more of it, especially when "more" so often constitutes two-line stubs.