Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jj137

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.

Jj137

[edit]

Final (44/4/3); Closed as successful by WjBscribe at 01:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jj137 (talk · contribs) - Hi all. I have been a Wikipedian since June 2006 and have been actively editing since May 2007; I have over 12,000 (undeleted) edits. I frequently new page patrol, and make the appropriate edits there (copyediting, speedy tags, etc.). I commonly participate in XfDs, although mainly AfDs. To a lesser extent, I revert vandalism and, if necessary, will report users to WP:AIV or request page protections at WP:RPP. I think it is time I become a sysop. Thanks   jj137 ♠ Talk 20:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate

[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I have a few main areas of work I will take place in, similar to what I'm doing now, except doing sysop-related things instead of what any regular user can do. I will continue to new page patrol, and delete any nonsense or vandal pages. Obviously, I will not delete any pages immediately unless they are completely inappropriate to the encyclopedia. If I think a page may need to be deleted, I will simply mark it with a speedy tag and come back to it a few minutes later and see if it needs to be deleted. In AfDs, I would like to have more experience closing them. I know non-sysops can close AfDs—and I have closed a few—but they should exercise caution. I will work to close as many AfDs as I can. I will also work at WP:RPP and WP:AIV to help out non-sysops with activity there. At WP:ACC, I constantly just have to leave a message saying "a sysop will create your account shortly", but I will be able to go ahead and create the account there.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I have built many Cincinnati Reds-related articles (for every season, 1876-2006) as well as some for other teams, such as Houston Astros (1962-2006), and Detroit Tigers (randomly scattered years). 2006 Cincinnati Reds season may be one of my best pieces of work, simply due to the amount of time I spent in fixing the article up. I have written a few biographies of retired baseball players. In general, I will help out with any sports-related article, although my main focus is baseball (WP:MLB). I also started WP:BOSOX, and I am very active there. I have also created somewhere around 800-900 articles on genera of moth, although they are all stubs.
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: No major edit wars. However, some users have wanted to delete some of the articles I've created because of "lack of notability", but so far, none have. 2005 Cincinnati Reds season was taken to an Afd, but was not deleted. In new page patrol, one or two users have told me not to patrol and tag articles with speedy tags so quickly (I explained what I would do above: only delete articles if they have been around for several minutes and obviously don't belong).


Additional Question from RMHED (talk) 02:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

4 Do you agree with Rick Block's assessment of your multiple stub creations? [1]
A: Somewhat. I have seen some moth genera articles that are more than stubs, and if those can reach start class, most I create probably could. On the other hand, some may be more notable than others, as some could be completely irrelevant and simply be changed to redirects. As of right now, I'm keeping them as is (not redirects), though.   jj137 ♠ Talk 03:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional Questions from Nat

5. What is the difference between banning and indefinite blocking?
A: Indefinite blocking generally results from vandalism-only accounts, serious disruption, or until a matter is resolved. There is no time limit on them, and they can be overturned, although sometimes they aren't. If no sysops want to overturn the block, they are considered banned. Bans can result also from WP:RFARB. Indef blocks can be appealed by the user on their user talk page. Bans take away the user's editing privileges on part or all of Wikipedia (this can cover talk pages).   jj137 ♠ Talk 16:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. If you ran into a extreme POV pusher, and he/she has not committed any vandalism, what steps would you take to deal with this individual?
A: I would try to calmly talk to the user about what they have been doing. I would explain certain instances where they have pushed POV, and what they could do to improve their writing to be NPOV. Obviously, if I have tried repeatedly to talk with the user to change the writing to NPOV and they are very unwilling, or just "don't see it", I could try to fix the POV writing myself (if possible).   jj137 ♠ Talk 16:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. How do you understand WP:NFC as it applies to promotional images and other non-free portraits of living people used for the purpose of showing what the subject looks like?
A: It is best to only use non-free content when it improves the understanding of the subject to the readers, and should be used to a minimum. Anything that doesn't agree with the 10 rules described at WP:NFC will be deleted, no matter how important it might be. It mainly has to do with copyrights, so that there is no legal trouble in any way and Wikipedia does not get severely hurt.   jj137 ♠ Talk 17:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Would you be willing to add yourself to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall if promoted? Why or why not?
A: Yes. If I was a sysop it would probably be a good idea to be open to recall; if several others think I need a reconfirmation of adminship, then they may be right. I would always be open to recall in case I need a "re-evaluation" to make sure I'm doing everything right.   jj137 ♠ Talk 17:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. What is your interpretation of WP:IAR and under what circumstances should one follow that policy?
A: My interpretation of WP:IAR is that if a rule gets in the way of improving the encyclopedia, simply ignore it and act as if it isn't there. However, sometimes this may not be the best idea to follow. It definitely doesn't mean I'm a perfect contributor; if I get something wrong, I can always just revert it. Also, rules can't set in stone everything. If there is a circumstance where it would obviously be a better idea to ignore the rule than to perfectly abide by it, I would go ahead and ignore it.   jj137 ♠ Talk 17:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional questions from Daniel, posted 06:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

10. Were you aware of the decision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff about undeleting articles citing biographies of living persons concerns, and what is your understanding of it?
A: I was aware of it. I will need to exercise caution when deleting bios, unless they are undoubtedly inappropriate to the encyclopedia. In that case, a consensus would really be needed to undelete the article. I would delete any bio that significantly violates any policy (as stated there). Either way, the person who wanted to undelete the article would need proof as to why it shouldn't be deleted.   jj137 ♠ Talk 17:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. If you wish to undelete an article citing the biographies policy (or OTRS as well), what steps would you take? What steps wouldn't you take?
A: I could take the article to WP:DRV for consensus. If there is an obvious consensus, I would undelete the article and make sure it meets all of the requirements of WP:BIO. If there wasn't a consensus and/or most people wanted to keep it deleted, then obviously remain in its state: deleted. One thing I wouldn't do is to simply undelete the article unless it had absolutely no place being deleted (for example, Barry Bonds, which additionally would probably result in my desysopping).   jj137 ♠ Talk 17:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional questions from Coppertwig (talk) 22:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

12. Re your answer to Q1 above, you said If I think a page may need to be deleted, I will simply mark it with a speedy tag and come back to it a few minutes later and see if it needs to be deleted. Could you clarify/expand on this? If you're not sure whether a page needs to be deleted or not, how will you determine, a few minutes later, whether it needs to be deleted?
A: Once or twice people have told me not to tag new pages with speedy tags too fast, as it sometimes just annoys the author, and/or the author may improve it to be an article and is just working on it. For example, sometimes I will see new pages with only the name of the article in the article (I mean, if the title was "Example 1", the only thing I would see is Example 1). Occasionally, these articles, a few minutes later, may be well-written stubs or start-class articles. Do you see what I mean?   jj137 ♠ 22:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think I understand what you're saying. You seem to be saying that if you see a new article that just says "Example 1", then as an admin you would immediately put a speedy tag on it and then come back a few minutes later, even though people have told you not to put speedy tags on pages like that. I assume I misundertand what you're saying and invite you to clarify. Also, you haven't answered my question about how you would determine (when you come back a few minutes later) whether the page needs to be deleted. (inserting brief remark to reduce overall brusqueness of this comment by 2 degrees) --Coppertwig (talk) 23:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I wouldn't put a tag on the article immediately. A few minutes later, if the article stays NPOV, still isn't just its original "Example 1" text, and at least doesn't completely do the opposite of WP:N (as in, it isn't a bio about some random 8-year-old who made an article about himself), then I think it should stay. Does that clarify?   jj137 ♠ 02:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Thank you. --Coppertwig (talk) 15:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13. Also in your answer to Q1 above, you said In AfDs, I would like to have more experience closing them. I know non-sysops can close AfDs—and I have closed a few—but they should exercise caution. I will work to close as many AfDs as I can. Why do you think non-sysops should exercise caution, and how much caution would you exercise as an admin?
A: Non-sysops should exercise caution because they aren't admins, and it would put the user in hot soup if they made a bad decision in closing an AfD. Also, I don't think it would be good to see a not-very-experienced user closing an AfD. As an admin, I would exercise roughly the same amount of caution, simply because it wouldn't be good to just go around and close a ton of AfDs without making very cautious decisions in every one. Also, we're talking about whether or not an article should be removed from an encyclopedia. I don't think a decision like that should be placed in the wrong hands or have an inappropriate decision made.   jj137 ♠ 22:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Jj137 before commenting.

Discussion

[edit]
Support
[edit]
  1. Support This editor has done tons of work, contributes a lot to the mainspace, knows policy, meets my standards. Useight (talk) 00:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Amazing editor, would make a great admin. STORMTRACKER 94 00:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sure. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 01:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Definately seems good enough. Give him the mop! Jhfireboy Talk 01:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Looks good to me Support, obviously. --Sharkface217 01:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support, weakly. Looks to be ready for the mop, but a review of contribs shows that most of his AfD comments are per nom or with similarly limited reasoning. I would encourage him to further familiarize himself with the generally good advice of WP:AADD and be careful in determining consensus. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Most definitely. Whenever I put "per nom" or "per (other user)", it is mainly because all of my reasoning has already been explained by another user.   jj137 ♠ Talk 02:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. It's pointless to state the reasons when the reasons are obvious and already stated above. Why should he/she waste another's readers time? "Per nom", at times, is the perfect comment. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support, seems reliable enough, but I'd repeat what Eluchil404 said above - "per nom" is not really a useful contribution to AfD in most cases. Lankiveil (talk) 02:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  8. Support, JJ has helped me a countless number of times with anything and everything I've asked. He is a very nice wikipedian and seems very smart. He also started at least one wikiproject, one which I am a part of, the Red Sox Wikiproject. I support JJ for adminship. --HPJoker (talk) 03:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - Even though I probably get this user mixed up with Jc37 (I think?), this user's contributions are simply outstanding and hopefully the community will see that. Good luck. Rt. 12:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support evidence of good 'pedia building. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support, per answers to Questions 1, 2 and 3. Also through a perusal of past contributions seems to be a good contributor to the project. Nice work on WP:BOSOX. Actively fostering collaboration with others is also always a strong sign of a good contributor. Cirt (talk) 13:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  12. Support. Won't abuse the tools. Good luck. Malinaccier (talk) 16:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Some dubious CSD tagging, but apart from that seems like a civil and productive editor. RMHED (talk) 17:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Does a fine job. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Good editor. I'd like to say that Moonriddengirl gave very valuable advice below that I hope you'll heed before going crazy with the delete button. henrik•talk 22:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Can't say no... Redrocketboy 01:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support - looks like there are a ton of good edits, very involved, unlikely to abuse the tools. Jauerback (talk) 02:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support - Seems like the right temperament. MURGH disc. 03:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support, can't see any good reasons why Jj137 could not be trusted with the tools. Neıl ☎ 11:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support - this is the first self-nom I have commented on in a long while, and it is a good one! Excellent particition in all relevant areas! :-) Lradrama 12:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support - Won't abuse tools, good edits -Lemonflash(O_o) 17:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Happy to support. Great contribs, seems very capable of holding a mop. Keeper | 76 17:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. Looks good. Has created dozens of stubs, lots of edits and mainspace edits, etc., so meets every possible standard. No concerns about his misusing the mop. Bearian (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Per all of the above, and personal experience. <DREAMAFTER> <TALK> 21:18, 17 December 2007
  25. Support. Having considered Jj's contributions, I am willing to back his nomination. He has a desirable number of edits (12000+), moderately participates in Articles for Deletion discussions, performs impressive amounts of counter-vandalism edits, and communicates well with other editors. Most of all, he's trustworthy, and it's safe to say he'd do his bit to scrape away at the backlogs. Best of luck! Anthøny 22:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support - No obvious Problems. PookeyMaster (talk) 22:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support - trustworthy editor. Addhoc (talk) 23:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. support --.snoopy. 22:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support a good person and all that. Ouro (blah blah) 13:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of having balls EJF (talk) 22:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Haha. I posted this on Kurt's talkpage, just for fun. AvruchTalk 02:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not that being bold necessarily equals being a good admin.--Fabrictramp (talk) 22:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well Played, sir. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Seen the nom around. Just be careful at AfD, please. Dlohcierekim 04:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. and I have no problem w/ self noms. Dlohcierekim 04:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. New admins make mistakes, and, among other things, that's why we have WP:DRV. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 05:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support per this: Oppose A "per nom" article deletion vote, when the voter has not verified asserted facts, is a vote, not an argument, it adds nothing but weight, and I'm concerned that a potential admin might not know the difference. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Range voting where candidate voted "per nom" as first voter, four minutes after AfD posted, and ended up being the only responding delete voter out of nine (plus the nominator, a possible sock puppet, blocked shortly thereafter, certainly an odd and short history for an AfD nominator Special:Contributions/StrengthOfNations) Did candidate verify the nominator claims? --Abd (talk) 21:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, I'd quite possibly change my vote if the candidate appropriately commented on the situation I referenced.Abd (talk) 03:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. After looking at it, it seems to me I just made a pretty bad mistake. I looked at what the article looked like at the time [2] and see I probably didn't even check the article before voting. Maybe I accidentally voted on the wrong AfD? Either way, that was a pretty well built article, and I don't think there's any chance in hell that should of been deleted (which, of course, it wasn't).   jj137 ♠ 04:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Per the reasons already given by the above; no reason why not to trust with the tools. Midorihana(talk)(contribs) 07:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Everything I want to see in an admin, doing lots of great work and I'm sure will do much more Mr Senseless (talk) 17:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support I've had several positive dealings with this editor via WP:WPBB, he has always been approachable and willing to work out disputes. He's been an invaluable contributor to baseball articles. Caknuck (talk) 21:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support NHRHS2010 Happy Holidays 23:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Great activity and I believe he would be great as an admin. Sirkadtalksign 23:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support A good user. --Siva1979Talk to me 04:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support contributions make this overall a net positive. I am sure others will help correct mistakes in the future. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure Jj137 appreciates the support but you've already expressed it - see #10... WjBscribe 11:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. The candidate has a good set of contributions, and I see no evidence of any cause to doubt his ability to properly use the tools, to the benefit of the project. Per other comments, though - do be careful on deletions, at least until you have a handle on discerning and adequately expressing consensus. No harm in second opinions on the really sticky cases. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Excellent contributor. Be mindful of the concerns brought up and you'll be good to go. :) Master of Puppets Care to share? 07:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Weak support. Admins don't have to be perfect. I hope you will exercise caution and always continue learning. Your answers to questions 1, 12 and 13 leave me with lingering doubts as to whether you're planning to use the tools with sufficient care; maybe I'm reading things in there that you didn't mean. I don't see how removing a link from a template is a minor edit. Happy Solstice and best of luck to you. --Coppertwig (talk) 09:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Looks good. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Good user. Acalamari 23:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
  1. Sorry, but you never put an extremely controversial matter up at DRV. Anything that has been through OTRS and the like is almost always controversial, and at best any discussion has to be extremely private. Sorry. 哦，是吗？(review O) 04:42, 17 December 2007 (GMT)
  2. Weak oppose per Q11. Three things worry me: Firstly, you don't mention anything about contacting the person who deleted it and asking them, which is really quite bad. Secondly, you say "I could take the article to WP:DRV for consensus. If there is an obvious consensus, I would undelete the article", which shows a lack of knowledge about the deletion process in that people involved in the discussion (especially the nominator) shouldn't be closing it, and especially not using their administrator tools. Thirdly, "and make sure it meets all of the requirements of WP:BIO" may have been a mere typo, but the decision and the question related to the biographies of living persons policy, not the notability of people guideline. Furthermore, my position was enhanced by the two people below me in neutral. However, the easily most worrying part of this, for me, is the fact that you wouldn't contact the user who deleted any article before opening up a discussion on it, and especially so if it relates to sensitive information in a deleted living persons biography. This worry duplicates for all administrator actions (protection, deletion, and even general editing), as it shows that you may not understand the concept of courtesy to your fellow administrator and rush straight to the appropriate noticeboard/review page without first discussing it with the administrator involved. Daniel 03:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Regrettable, but Daniel does bring up quite a good point. Jmlk17 11:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Weak oppose I've encountered the same issues with mistagged speedy requests that Moonriddengirl mentioned. I'm not sure having more admins who haven't read the requirements for speedy deletion, especially the definition of patent nonsense, is a good idea. (However, if you study up, I think eventually you'd make a good admin).--Fabrictramp (talk) 14:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
  1. Neutral - You're clearly a fine editor, and I have no reason to believe you would abuse the tools, but reading through your answers to the questions above and looking back through your Wikipedia namespace contributions, I'm having a hard time measuring your knowledge about Wikipedia policy and guidelines. That being said, I think you are a solid new page patroller and have demonstrated a need for the tools, so I may come back and revisit this vote based on further discussion or your answers to the optional questions. --jonny-mt 13:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral. I don't want to oppose, because I believe that you do a lot of great work on Wikipedia, but I am a little concerned with some of your recent CSD tags, particularly with what the implication of those could be if you have admin tools. I notice that you've tagged quite a few articles as nonsense, and all of the ones that I've reviewed have been deleted for one reason or another, though not all of them have been strictly nonsense in the Wikipedia definition. For example, on November 19th, you tagged the Turkish language article Yücel Hatay for deletion as nonsense, although CSD GC1 specifically excludes "material not in English". After another editor removed the speedy and listed it for translation, it was discovered that the article was a recreation of a foreign language article on another wiki, so the article was deleted after all, but you should know the proper procedure for handling foreign language articles if you're going to be the one evaluating speedies. Leaving "nonsense" aside, on December 2nd, you tagged the previously speedily deleted article The Juniperus chinensis from Six Dynasties under G4 as a recreation of deleted material, though that criterion specifies that it is not for articles that have previously been speedied, but only those that have undergone deletion discussions. On December 3rd, you tagged the article Sarah Hauser for "no content". The article was ultimately deleted under A7, but even though the sole content of the article at the time you tagged it was "Sarah Hauser", it was less than a minute old. The CSD policy addresses such situations specifically in stating "Contributors sometimes create articles over several edits, so try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its creation if it appears incomplete". I think tagging an article that age in that state with that criterion is a bit bitey. New contributors could easily be discouraged by such a welcome. You have made many, many valid CSD tags, and I think you're an extremely valuable new page patroller, but I would hope to see thorough familiarity with that policy in an admin interested in deletions. I suspect given the overall quality of your work that you will receive the admin tools and you will most likely make excellent use of them, but I'd really like to encourage you to exercise caution with deletions and thoroughly familiarize yourself with the speedy criteria if you plan to contribute there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral. I also believe you're an excellent contributor, especially in regards to new pages and I don't believe you would intentionally misuse the tools. Unfortunately per your responses (as pointed out by Daniel) and issues such as those Moonriddengirl mentioned, I don't believe you have the necessary knowledge of policy just yet. Shell babelfish 17:00, 20 December 2007 (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/Jj137&oldid=1085955577"