Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JaGa

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.


JaGa

[edit]

Final (83/3/0); ended 18:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC) - closed as successful - Kingturtle = (talk) 18:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

[edit]

JaGa (talk · contribs) – Well, I've finally decided to quit waiting for a suitor, swallow my pride, and self-nom. I've been around for a while now, doing different things. For the last year or two I've focused almost exclusively on disambiguation, but now I'm ready to try something new - specifically, admin work. I work on this project because I believe in Wikipedia - that its mission is both noble and attainable. I'm proud to know that I'm a part of it, and would like to contribute even more as an administrator. I hope my contributions to the project and efforts to be a responsible member of the community prove I'm worthy of being trusted to wield the mop. JaGatalk 04:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I want to start with queue watching - reviewing speedy requests, for instance - and get involved with vandal fighting again. My user page hasn't been vandalized in a long time and I'm a little ashamed of that. I also want to work on the RM queue. Once I get comfortable with these roles, I'd like to get involved with dispute resolution - edit wars, incivility, etc. - basically getting people to play nice. I think we lose a lot of potential contributors to bitey editors. Finally, I anticipate life as an admin will give me inspiration for future Toolserver reports.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I've tried on many different hats here at Wikipedia. I've done a tour of duty vandal fighting, contributed a couple of featured images (the New River Gorge Bridge shot is my favorite), and created a slew of chemical structure SVGs (of which Apamin, a component of bee venom is my favorite).
I also get involved in policy discussions from time to time. One recent contribution I'm proud of is my change to the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guideline. You can see the lengthy discussion here. Basically, I incorporated the concept of "educational value" into consideration of what a primary topic is. (I won't go into the details, but for instance, it legitimizes having Apple be the fruit article instead of the corporation, and Nirvana the religious topic instead of the band. The goal of my change was to bring the guideline in line with actual practice.)
But in all reality, my most valuable contributions have probably been my work on the Toolserver. My reports help projects identify orphaned images, deadend pages, and uncategorized articles. Also, my "move watch" report - which collates moves by user over the last 24 hours, week, and month - has been instrumental in identifying some of our worst pagemove sockmasters, most notably Tobias Conradi, whom you may recognize by some of his more prolific socks - Schwyz, TigreTiger, TopoChecker, etc., etc. Tobias hasn't left us, and probably never will, but this simple tool has strongly checked his ability to perform unilateral mass moves.
My best Toolserver work has definitely been with the Disambiguation pages with links project. The project itself has been an excellent collaboration that shows what Wikipedia is capable of. My contributions started with a replacement of the once-or-twice-a-year database dump reports with a daily-generated Toolserver report, and eventually progressed to something truly unique: the Dab Challenge. In a nutshell, the Dab Challenge is a monthly contest to see who can fix the most links to disambiguation pages. It was entirely my own idea and development, and let me tell you, it wasn't an easy technical problem to solve. But it works! And what's more, it's been a fantastic success, if I do say so myself. A little bit of recognition and the ability to watch one's progress has been a great incentive for people; the number of dablinks has dropped by hundreds of thousands since the inception of the contest.
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: Back when I worked for the Orphanage, I teamed up with Addshore on an orphan-tagging project. As with most new article-tagging efforts, this met with resistance from editors who were offended by the ugly templates on "their" pages, and wanted to stop Addbot instead of just de-orphaning the article in question. In the worst instance, an editor started some nasty wikihounding at the WikiProject.
I made a few attempts to rein in their uncivil behavior, but more or less did nothing while the editor ranted and raved. Some time after the incident I realized I should have reported the editor at ANI to get them to participate in a civil manner. But I didn't, so I passively allowed the editor to pursue what I now believe was their true goal - make things as unpleasant as possible and poison the project.
Since then, I've been more willing to stand against this type of disruptive behavior, when necessary. Usually, once an editor becomes aware that bullying won't work, their behavior improves. I'm proud of this exchange, for instance, where I helped shift an attack into a civil discussion; that action was a direct result of the lessons learned at the Orphanage.
Additional question from Chzz
4. A user page created in 2006 contains 'chatty' information about a person - their nickname (not their full name), their school, their school-friends (first names only), their hobbies, and their pet dog. No negative BLP content; nothing overtly worrying. The user has no other contributions. The page has not been edited since 2006. Now, an IP editor (with no other contribs) blanks that page, with no edit summary. Their edit is reverted by an RC patroller as 'unexplained blanking' - and thus the previous content is back on display. Please describe what actions you would take.
A: I would do a quick search to see if the BLP appears notable or not. If it is, I'd tag it for cleanup, and maybe do some cleanup myself. If not, I would tag it for deletion; A7 speedy if it's really obviously non-notable (which sounds like the case here - without a full name I can't imagine too many scenarios I'd be finding this person in a search), a BLP PROD if there could be some doubt but there are no reliable sources (I'm assuming this article has no refs of its own), an AfD if there are refs but I think it fails notability. For speedy or prod, I'd put the article in my watchlist; for AfD, the discussion. --JaGatalk 06:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was asking about a user page, not an article page. I'm sorry; my mention of "no negative BLP content" may have lead to the misunderstanding; what I meant by that was - that this user page contains noting negative about a living person; nothing libelous, insulting, or otherwise potentially attacking any people. It's basically a kid talking about their interests. Chzz  ►  07:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, sorry! For the harmless user page, I would do nothing; they may come back some day. If the IP's edit were recent, I might drop a note asking why they blanked the page. If they claim to be the user, I'd help them figure out how to get it deleted. --JaGatalk 07:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Minimac
5. Have you contributed to Wikipedia in terms of evaluating any content? (i.e. creating articles, DYKs and expanding pages to GA/FA status)
A: Yes. I've created several articles, although content editing isn't my primary focus. Ira F. Brilliant Center for Beethoven Studies comes to mind - I also did the pictures for that one; I really like the one of the Dulcken fortepiano - and for American Musical Theatre of San Jose, I got a DYK. I've expanded and copyedited other articles, for instance adding a major section to the bailout article: Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008#Key items in the legislation.
More recently, I've created and copyedited many, many disambiguation pages, and will occasionally create an article when an analysis of dablinks shows one would be useful; for instance, Respiratory tract infection and Hilum (biology). --JaGatalk 08:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Keepscases
6. If a new sports team were created that would represent Wikipedia, what would its name be (i.e. Wikipedia ______s)? Why?
A: Hmmm, how about the Wikipedia Infonauts? The info- part identifies with what Wikipedia is all about - the world's encyclopedia - and the -nauts gives it a playful catchiness (unlike the more suggestive Wikipedia Infomaniacs). --JaGatalk 08:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from TCO
7. Which article have you added the most content to, prior to 2011, and please briefly describe what you added.
A: That would probably be the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 article, concerning the financial bailout legislation passed in 2008. I edited the article quite a bit, but my biggest contribution was the creation of a section to summarize the legislation. I remember looking the article up to learn more about this legislation - and this was when it was still in Congress so it was all over the news - and seeing a good history and rationale for the bill, and an extensive summary of opinions about the bill from journalists, lawmakers, polls, etc., but nothing that summarized what the bill was actually going to do. I was sure many other people had been as disappointed as I was, so I hunkered down and banged out a summary over the course of several evenings. It probably doesn't look like much, but it took a lot of effort to understand the bill and summarize it in a readable and thoroughly referenced style. It must have been acceptable; although the section (Key items in the legislation) has been expanded and reorganized somewhat since I created it, almost all of my content has been left unchanged. --JaGatalk 05:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Discussion

[edit]
Support
[edit]
  1. Support have at it ˉˉanetode╦╩ 05:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. Excellent candidate. That disambiguation work is pretty thankless, I'd imagine, but essential to supporting readers' navigation. 28bytes (talk) 05:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Experienced editor, seems highly clueful, fully meets my criteria = A genuine net positive. Pol430 talk to me 10:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Stud. -FASTILY (TALK) 10:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Pretty hard to judge contributions since there's so many, but you meet my RfA criteria and seem to be clueful, and there's no reason to oppose that I'm aware of. My concerns below are still valid. However I feel I can trust you to use the mop responsibly. Swarm X 11:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC) moved from neutral[reply]
  6. Support Although the candidate does not have a great deal of new content creation, the quality vandal fighting & Wikignome work more than make up for it.--Hokeman (talk) 13:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose - Candidate is not dedicated enough to improving articles. [1] (j/k) Actually, JaGa's work makes him fully acceptable as an admin in my opinion. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Very experienced editor. Cannot see any issue in the recent edits I have checked. Happy to support. WormTT 15:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Clueful and experienced. He'll do fine. Pichpich (talk) 17:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support No worries here CalumH93|talk 18:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Eminently qualified for the role. I have no doubts that he can be trusted with the tools. Lovetinkle (talk) 18:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. Experienced editor who has shown great dedication to improving Wikipedia, especially in the unglamorous parts like fixing links to disambiguation pages. IMHO, this kind of behind-the-scenes work is more relevant to judging admin qualifications than generating lots of content; whether one is a superb writer and/or editor has little correlation with the somewhat tedious, detail-oriented daily work of the admins. Of course, that work does require good judgment in many cases, and good faith in all cases, and JaGa has demonstrated both in abundance. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support No skeletons in this closet... --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  14. The rationales above summarize my quick impression. - Dank (push to talk) 21:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support He will be a good administrator. WayneSlam 21:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support, clueful, broadly experienced, valued contributor. Ridiculously prolific at dab-delinking. One of the reasons I don't try for the Dab Top Three (other is laziness). Will make a strong admin. The Interior (Talk) 22:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Experienced user and has made a great deal of valued contributions.Gabesta449 edits ♦ chat 23:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support likely net positive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Should have been a long time ago. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  20. (edit conflict)Support JaGa was extremely helpful in cleaning up after the whole TigreTiger fiasco (I can link if you'd like), and his new tool had immediate payoff. Knows what he's doing, and a definite net positive. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support wholeheartedly. For future reference, candidates can always come to me for a nomination if they feel it might help. Ironholds (talk) 10:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. A strong and well experienced editor. I like the answers to questions, which come across as straight and honest, and a look through contributions throws up no concerns. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Sufficiently reliable and trustworthy. JaGa has done some good things. ceranthor 14:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Amongst other things, particularly impressed by the handling of Q4, your "whoops" comment (!) and you collegial discussion with Chzz around it. Pedro :  Chat  16:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe my eyes are getting old--but when I first read the question (too hastily, perhaps), I also thought it was a BLP issue. Drmies (talk) 20:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support: An experienced editor who has shown a true dedication to the project. Their contributions and role within WP:Disambiguation, particularly with regards to the DPL project, shows that this user has much to offer and can be trusted with the responsibility required for an admin. -France3470 (talk) 16:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Keepscases (talk) 17:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Based on my experience with him, which shows he has experience, clue, calmness, and great awareness of what an encyclopedia is all about. First Light (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. Well deserved. Active, experienced, no reason to oppose. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 18:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support ~~Awsome EBE123~~(talk | Contribs) 21:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Strong Support - Brilliant editor. Great stuff. :) Orphan Wiki 21:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support - An excellent candidate. ~NerdyScienceDude 21:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. User has a clue. Talk page conversations are clear evidence that the user is helpful and cooperative, and can hold a conversation in a respectful and friendly manner. Block log is clean. Contributions on the talk pages of disruptive editors are very courteous and diplomatic. Contribution history shows many, many positive and helpful edits; the ones I looked at were on the gnomish side, and I'd like to see a higher article-to-talk ratio in general, but all in all, I have no doubts. Drmies (talk) 23:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Sure. Prolific editor well focused on content. Isn't that what wikipedia is all about? And, what's good enough for drmies, is good enough for me!--rgpk (comment) 00:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Very dedicated contributors like this deserved the mop a LONG time ago. Royalbroil 04:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Clearly a candidate with a sufficient amount of clue. Strikerforce (talk) 04:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Per the very competent people above. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Looks like this editor is ready to become an admin user. Good luck to you. –BuickCenturyDriver 07:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support: Cooperative user. I like his tools. --Leyo 15:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. I see no reasons not to trust this user with the mop. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support, appears to have clue. Stifle (talk) 16:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. Fully qualified candidate, no concerns. The concerns expressed by the opposers so far are completely unpersuasive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. Experienced and clueful editor. Salih (talk) 06:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Well qualified candidate. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  44. No problems. Opposes completely unconvincing. BigDom 13:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support: After a year and a half on Wikipedia, I decided to participate in an RfA discussion this morning. I'm pleased to say that my first determination on a nominee's worthiness to be an administrator can be one of support. After thorough analysis, I find no reason why you shouldn't soon be Wikipedia's newest admin. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 14:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support:No reason why not--Sokac121 (talk) 15:34, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support - Excellent candidate. Monterey Bay (talk) 19:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. Siecor (talk) 20:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support Baseball Watcher 20:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support per above. Good editors make good admins. AfterHelper11 (talk) 00:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. MarmadukePercy (talk) 01:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support Give him the mop. Enough with the lame excuses for why someone proven responsible shouldn't obtain adminship. How much damage can he do? It can always be revoked. MobileSnail 18:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Looks like valuable editor and a good potential admin.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 18:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TC3132011 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support – Definitely. —mc10 (t/c) 20:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support - you're not an admin already!? Mjroots (talk) 21:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support Adminship is no big deal and you'll make a great admin! Basket of Puppies 22:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support Superb candidate, trustworthy. I'd like to reiterate the support of the editors above me. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 10:33am • 23:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support—No red flags. I especially liked your answer to question six :). Airplaneman ✈ 01:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support Seems like a good candidate for success...Modernist (talk) 04:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support Great work. --Banana (talk) 06:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support. Limited content creation, but otherwise good contributions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support. Just happened to stop by, and noticed the request of someone I trust. Also allows me to check in and reassure anyone interested that I am all right after the earthquake/tsunami. Dekimasuよ! 00:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support. Straightforward and honest.(olive (talk) 02:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]
  65. Support More than solid editing experience, good answers here. Steven Walling 02:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support (edit conflict) I was considering being your 'suitor' ;-) but self-nom works too. Jujutacular talk 02:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support Good editing experience, and I'm wondering why he wasn't made an admin a few years ago. This should be an RfB :P . ManishEarthTalk • Stalk 04:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Why not? Inka888 05:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support Chaosdruid (talk) 05:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support Good experience and no major issues for me. Helps out in copy editing as well, which is much needed in order to raise the quality of work in the encyclopedia. – SMasters (talk) 07:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support "Good enough" - I know that isn't a fantastic ringing endorsement - but it is an honest one, and I hope it will encourage you take careful note of the more negative comments. The primary concern is, this "trying something new" attitude and lack of specific evidence of CSD (and saying that is what you want to try). However, I think, from our interactions on your talk and your very good conduct in responses on this RfA that you've got the most important skill - "common sense" - knowing when to be cautious, when to double-check yourself, and when it's best to ask other people for advice. Your clearly demonstrated common sense has outweighed the concerns, hence I land here. And now I'm waffling. G'luck.  Chzz  ►  13:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support - Drmies and Chzz have said it all. Kudpung (talk) 13:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support. Conscientious, clueful and civil editor; little admin-related experience, but demonstrates all the character attributes of a good admin. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support. Give the fella a mop - he should do a good job. Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! (Whisper...) 16:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  75. --Closedmouth (talk) 17:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  76. per TCO. Syn 18:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support. This is an easy support for me, lots of positives and no red flags. Go ahead, try something new, nothing wrong with that. (And I have to say, from my earlier lab research career, that apamin has a warm spot in my heart.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support. Great user who deserves adminship. Doh5678 (talk) 19:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support —SW— confer 23:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Stephen 00:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support I see no red flags here, and no reason to distrust the candidate. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  82. —GFOLEY FOUR— 02:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Courcelles 15:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
  1. Oppose per the answer to Question #4. I'm sorry, but BLP's that appear non-notable are not tagged as A7's.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 15:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ummm... what? CSD A7 explicitly mentions people under A7 criteria; I tag at least 5-10 non-notable living people per day on NPP. If you mean "BLPs in userspace", you should probably clarify that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    A7 is not about notability. It's about importance or significance - that's the test that passes A7, which is separate from notability.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 18:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought you might say that; I think he's just equivocating terms here, although he may want to clarify that himself. It doesn't look like a fundamental misunderstanding so much as just not pinning the wording down exactly right; I can't say that bothers me too much, because it's the actions that count more. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. Inability to give a structured response to a simple question. You do not detail what you actually did. How much prose, how many refs, etc. You leave me having to go research through diffs. That is unsat. The whole article concerns legislation, but you say you described legislation. If you can not describe what you did on an article, I'm concerned about your ability to contribute content or to synthesize arguments in AFD or the like. We are in the business of synthesizing content for users...TCO (talk) 06:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    We expect people to be able to provide a word-count and reference numbering for the entirety of their contributions to an article, now? Surely the onus should be on you to prove that he has an inability to work things out at AfD and in articles - using diffs from both, not "he didn't include a word count in an RfA question" - rather than his onus being to somehow prove a negative. Ironholds (talk) 10:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "You leave me having to go research through diffs." That's precisely what we expect people voting in RfAs to do. Pichpich (talk) 12:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The question was "Which article have you added the most content to, prior to 2011, and please briefly describe what you added". I think the answer covers that fairly well although not perfectly. If TCO required precise wordcounts or did not want to look at diffs, it might have been a good idea to mention either of those in the question, although either would be strange requests to make of a candidate at RfA. Shame, really, as I think the question is good and interesting. bobrayner (talk) 14:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is the difference between raw data and information. Sure, I could (maybe) search the diffs and try to reconstruct the fellow's contribution (even that can be hard with cut and pasting and the like). But he knows how much he did. Whether it was one paragraph and two sources or 15 paras and 40 sources. It's impossible to tell from the candidate's answer, what he did. I can't even tell which section he wrote (he mentions one, but does not point to or name it, and the whole thing is legislation). I agree with the candidate that summarizing a bunch of disparate content into a good section is serious work, that part of the story resonated, but he didn't show the same ability to convey info in how he answered a question here as what he needs to do in articles. If he can't thoughtfully summarize and synthesize in responses here, I worry about his ability to adjuticate content disputes, AFDs or summarize user behaviors.TCO (talk) 15:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thoughtfully summarize and analyze what someone did to an article to which they contributed before this year? In detail, with diffs and all? I do not find this an appropriate question at all. Drmies (talk) 21:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not request diffs. I requested information conveyance. This is what "good staff work" is about. It is a lot of what we do in article creation or in summarizing AFDs or content disputes. The false dillema of "can't tell you anthing" versus "tell you everything" is not good staff work. Bottom line, we still have NO CLUE how substantial the fellow's work product was for the article in question. I suspect it was lacking, but bottom line is I can't tell because there was no thoughtful brief delivered. If someone can't do that, how can they compose an encyclopedia article? And isn't that what we are here to do? No? TCO (talk) 22:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want a clue, check their diffs. Ask them for an article (that's fair enough), and then click on the history. I'm not sure what you mean with good staff work. I've held jobs for over thirty years, and have been here on WP for a few years, and I've never seen it on a performance review or anywhere else. Your bottom line is not the bottom line of RfA. We are here to judge if they have a clue, if they are likely to abuse the tools, and if they are a decent cooperator and contributor. You are the judge; don't ask them to provide all the evidence. And since they are on the chopping block and you're not, they have no choice but to be cooperative and friendly toward a request that, in my opinion, is simply out of line and asks way too much of the candidate. Drmies (talk) 23:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with you, that I should have to do the work to research the answer for three reasons. First, it was a non-frivolous request: understanding the candidates content creation is significant. Second, anyone who writes an article or part of it KNOWS what came from them and can assemble it much easier than someone else through diffs (for instance the cut and paste issue mentioned). Thirdly, the ability to synthesize information is exactly what we do in articles (we don't just tell the user go research it...here's a Google search window and LOC reading room access. We figure out a sructure and gather info and present it. In a smaller way, we do the same when closing a disagreement in summarizing arguments. If it's "no big deal" for me to research it, it's no big deal for the candidate. And bottom line we STILL don't know if he really did much work on that article. Overall, my impression is that if all he can come up with is one section of one article (and can't even say the name of the section) than he probably isn't much of an article writer. And that's not good for the Project...since we are in the business of getting articles put together for users. And so, I don't want a moderator who hasn't written articles on an article-writing volunteer project.TCO (talk) 04:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So essentially, you feel that a) you shouldn't have to actually do anything because the question matters (tell me - is there any RfA question posed where the questioner doesn't think it matters?) b) someone who wrote an article a year ago can be expected to have perfect recall of everything they did, right off the bat, 3) article writers are expected to be able to synthesise information, which is totally relevant when considering someone's position within the community vis a vis tools which do not in any way, shape or form pertain to article-writing. This is just another of the long-running "he hasn't got enough GAs! There's no way he can have the trust of the community!" opposes using flimsy and transparent reasoning to try and hide its purpose. God forbid we make the mistake of thinking that Wikipedia is for anything other than content-creation. I mean, if you assume that, you have to provide evidence for it, like.. ooh, the massive bundle of tools unrelated to content creation, which we are on this page to discuss. That sort of evidence. Just FYI, never go up for adminship - by your own reasoning, you're an inappropriate candidate. Ironholds (talk) 15:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    TOC, this, minus a template and category or two, is JaGa's work. They mentioned it up, up on the page. Drmies (talk) 20:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks man. It has a decent layout to it, but it is the typical "duplicate a website" sort of creation that I have seen elsewhere (for instance the fellow who made a site on the NASA Cape Canaveral Visitor's Center). I think we need to do better than that. To the other fellow...yep. I think creation of synthesized content is what we are about and we're 10 years into it and need to up our game. There are centuries of work on how to organize content and a world full of well done content. This is the most important thing.TCO (talk) 22:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    We are 10 years into it, yes, but those edits were made three years ago when policies and styling was, to a degree, more loose. Are you a content writer? I am, and I can tell you that if you think just producing the raw content is the most important thing in the world, you're mistaken. There are writers, there are copyeditors, and there are janitors. All have a role to play, and when we're discussing someone's aptitude for janitorial tools, an absence of writing should not be an issue. Wikipedia's tagline is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit", and since "anyone" includes "dicks", someone who thinks that countering those dicks is not a prime goal is simply wrong, as is somebody who mistakes "our main goal" for "our only goal, to the exclusion of all other contributions". Have you got any evidence, whatsoever, that JaGa is incompetent in the janitorial field? He's applying for janitorial tools, he's asking for the trust of the community in using them. If you cannot find evidence to indicate that he'd be a bad person to hold them, all other concerns are irrelevant. Ironholds (talk) 08:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose I'm not convinced by the responses to questions, nor I trust you. This vote doesn't weigh much anyway (comparing it to the supportive totality), so best of luck. Diego Grez (talk) 02:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Any particular answers you found troubling? In RfAs, successful or unsuccessful, the oppose section is to be used not to punish the editor but to help them. Simply announcing that you didn't like their responses and don't trust them isn't too helpful - if you have something productive to say, say it. Ironholds (talk) 08:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
(Move to support) I don't know. Adminship isn't simply for those who want to try something new, it's for those who are already involved and experienced in admin-related areas. I can't really see that you are. For example, you'll start with things such as speedy deletion requests. You have 10,000 edits since January, and it doesn't look like there's any CSD work whatsoever in there how experienced are you with new page patrol? Next, adminship isn't about getting people to "play nice", and it's very concerning that you feel one of the responsibilities of an admin is dispute resolution. Dispute resolution, in the vast majority of cases, has nothing to do whatsoever with adminship. It's an extra set of tools, not a position of power in which you settle disputes. Why aren't you involved at WP:WQA or offering third opinions or commenting in requests for comment? Aside from your disambiguation work, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot going on in the namespace either. I'll need to see some more opinions on either side. Swarm X 07:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Moved to oppose) Candidate's Wikipedia content work is weak, and so I cannot make an accurate assessment at this time.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 09:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Moved to Support. I have great respect for Swarm's change, but his comments strike a chord and I nevertheless feel that wanting to 'try something new' isn't sufficient grounds for wanting the tools. --Kudpung (talk) 15:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I find it hard to believe that "trying something new" wasn't a component of your recent decision to go through RfA. By nature, admin tools provide one with new ways to help out the project and obviously nobody would go through RfA if they didn't want to try this out. Let's stick to the real questions. Can JaGa be trusted? Is he competent? Pichpich (talk) 17:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Trying something new" can be a component, but it's not enough. The reason I didn't strike my comment like I normally would is precisely because I still feel it's still important. I decided to go with my RfA criteria and trust in a net positive, but, as I said, I'm still concerned about this. Swarm X 21:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a totally neutral placement, a statement that, I am observing and likely will gather enough information to set appropriate regards, upon this RfA.. My76Strat (talk) 04:29, 16 March 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/JaGa&oldid=1147870920"