Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jc37

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Jc37

Final (14/20/13) Ended Wed, 4 Oct 2006 12:34:22 UTC

Jc37 (talk • contribs) – I've been editing on Wikipedia since around March, and reading it for several years now. List of characters on The West Wing (and my general leaning towards organization) finally persuaded me to make my first edit : ) Since then I've still been a "reader", but also joined several WikiProjects, and am active on CfD. jc37 06:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Self-nomination - jc37 06:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: Helping with the "X"fD pages (especially CfD) And helping with the "Speedy" work, as well.

Well, Categories for deletion, such as WP:CFD, C:CSD (and WP:UCFD), as I'm the most familiar with those, but also templates, articles, and miscellaneous for deletion. I also would be interested in helping out with Wikipedia:Requested moves. (expanded at 16:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC))

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any of which you are particularly pleased with, and why?

A:

1. I've done some ReOrg work on several list pages. (I enjoy organizing, among other things.) These are a few of my favourites:
   1. The West Wing was what finally got me to break down and edit Wikipedia the first time. (See: User:Jc37/Articles/The West Wing for some examples.)
   2. Did a massive clean-up and page organization of the Wikipedia:Userboxes gallery pages, especially the old Wikipedia:Userboxes/Media page (now apparently deleted): I split it into subsections, then moved the sections to individual pages, leaving "media" itself to be a page of links to the other pages; and the Wikipedia/Userboxes/Interests page, moving several subsections to their own pages (such as science and history).
   3. Did a clean-up/ReOrg on Robin (comics) that I liked.
   4. List of locations of the DC Universe Complete ReOrg, and also standardized listing (locations of the locations at the end; added punctuation, wikifications, etc)
2. I created the userbox for Wikipedia:WikiProject Greyhawk.
3. Did two major ReOrgs of Userbox policy proposal. The first separated the list of guidelines by theme, and general clean-up; the second, broke those themes into sections, and clarified throughout.
4. I'm also rather active in CfD.

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: Edit conflicts would seem to be the way of Wikipedia, these days. "Communication is the key." The best answer is discussion. Find out what the issue is, and why there may be a disagreement, and discuss. Keeping an open mind is a good thing (though allowing someone else to walk all over you is not : )

Have I been involved in any conflicts over editing? - Yes, I presume you could say that : )

As I said above, it seems to be the way of Wikipedia these days.

For example: WP:DENY - there have been issues over whether it should be a guideline yet. Eventually I started a new page for discussing it, in order to hopefully slowdown/stop the tag reversion warring. There was also a discussion in which I was the "third party" discussing the Islamic Barnstar, which bled to talk pages, among other things. Recently I attempted to start a talk page discussion about whether or not Darth Vader should be categorised as an icon of evil (in order to attempt to slow down that edit war as well). I find I am being called on lately to act as a "third party"(see my talk page). Which is fine with me, I like to help : ) (expanded at 16:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC))

4. Under what circumstances would you consider blocking an established user. --Mcginnly | Natter 08:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The answer may sound flippant, but it's not: It depends on the situation.

There's a list of various reasons to block on WP:BLOCK, but typically it's to give a "cool down period" or a "slow down" period. Doesn't matter if it's WP:3RR, WP:VAND, or WP:CIVIL.

I note your use of "established user". Except for the added weight such a user has on various process pages (such as this one), I think the rules are set up to be equal for all. That's one of Wikipedia's strengths - "anyone can edit". : ) - jc37 08:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Well there are the basics, such as WP:3RR: If an editor is constantly reverting a page so that he or she is disrupting the work of others, a block is possible. Or consistant/persistant vandalism (page blanking, the various page move vandals, etc.) But the problem I see with the inherent question, is that I would hope that most experienced editors wouldn't be doing such things. Same thing for violations of WP:CIVIL to the point of (again) disruption. Though in most cases I can think of, there is usually a "ramp up" to such situations, and time to drop a quick word (such as the admin's noticeboard) to get advice, or if I felt it necessary, help in mediation of the situation. (I'm a strong believer in "many eyes".) There are also the various legal concerns, dealing with copyright or personal info or threats, but again, I doubt that those would be things I would be involved in the blocking of. Two main key words are "persistant disruption". I keep feeling like I am attempting re-writing (or at least summarising) the WP:BLOCK page : ) - (expanded 19:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC))

General comments

With only a day remaining (I believe), and this RfA nearing closure, I think that this is a good time for me to stop and share my thoughts. I have said a few of these things elsewhere, but I thought bringing it all together in one place would be a "good thing".

(A note to closing bureaucrat(s) - this is not a withdrawal. I would like this to continue at least to the end of the 7-day period.)

Unless some surpise "miracle" happens (like a sudden influx of support votes, or oppose/neutral voters changing to support), it's likely that this RfA will fail to "no concensus".

I know that it's likely to come across "superficial", but I seriously appreciated everyone who came to share their opinion. I have to admit, I was really appreciating the neutral votes those first 2 days. So many nice things have been said about me, it was almost embarrassing to read.

I would like to make it as clear as I possibly can that I am in no way "upset" concerning such a result. (A little disappointed, maybe, but that's human nature : )

In my opinion. the current RfA process allows for whatever criteria a person may have. The criteria doesn't have to be about policy. RfA is essentially about trust, and whether each individual feels that I should be trusted with "the mop". So, to me, it's like asking a poker player what's lucky for him...

So with that in mind, how could I be upset?

In hindsight, however, I do think I made 2 mistakes.

• 1.) I am aware that personally, I sometimes have been known to give what others may consider "long answers". Also, in my readings over time of RfAs, I've noticed quite a few "run-on" meandering responses that led more to confusion, than clarity. So I made the choice to attempt to give "short, straight-forward" answers to each of the questions. In hindsight, that seems to have been a mistake, as I've been made rather painfully aware. Though I think the expansions are a bit of a compromise between my wont to give a short answer, but yet add clarity, it may have been "too late" by the time of their addition.

• 2.) With as slow as the RfA started out, I was starting to wonder (as I noted below) if it was possibly because Geni had withdrawn so soon after my request. So I went and "read up" on the RfA guidelines. I read this:
  • "Advertising" your RfA: Some editors do not like to see an RfA "advertised" by the nominee on other people's talk pages or on IRC. RfA is not a political campaign. The intent is to develop consensus. Impartial evaluation of a candidate, not how popular they are, is the goal."
• I also noted that it's 2 steps above "elaborate signatures". So to me it seemed to be a question of "personal opinion". So after reading that, I decided to do some research, and found WP:SPAM#Canvassing which I felt/feel clarified it rather well. (And by the way, I strongly urge all wikipedians to read those sections, because I've seen violations of those guidelines on talk pages nearly every day.) And I have a feeling that many who voted below may also not have been aware of the guideline (I think it should probably be noted on WP:GRFA). So what do I feel was my mistake? Well, I did not fully enough take into account what I said above. Whether it's policy or not, Wikipedians may feel that even a friendly notice is "too much" for them, and may automatically vote "oppose" on those grounds. As noted on WP:GRFA, and as I noted above, I believe it's well within their rights to do so. And I should have taken that more into consideration. I had actually considered posting a message on this page commenting about what I had done, but I decided (mistakenly) that it shouldn't be a "big deal", so I didn't. Not that it matters, but just as an overview, I believe that most of those I posted to, didn't respond, and I have a mixture of support, oppose, and neutral as responses from the few who did. I had no expectation when I sent it, and was (and am) appreciative of the responses.

And just for an overview of several comments below:

• I have an entry on WP:ER. I placed it several days before this RfA, and received only one response. This RfA has served well, I think though, in lieu of that.
• If my nomination didn't represent me very well, it's likely my own fault (since I chose what answers to give to questions).
• Please feel free to take my appreciation of irony however you see fit.

And while I thought all the comments were interesting, I want to single out one person - User:David D. He not only went through my contributions list (and I have to admit, I really liked hearing from everyone who obviously did so), but he also showed how much of an encyclopedist he is, and cited sources from it. Even though he voted support, I hope that no one will misunderstand when I say that once this RfA is over, I intend to give him a barnstar for his efforts. It's intended as a "nudge" so that he continues this sort of work on RfA and elsewhere in wikipedia.

One final thing I'd like to share, and that is that I learned quite a bit about all of you as well. Since it was my hope that others would look to see what I have done, I felt it only fair that I should do the same. So I've been through every commenter's contribution list. It was also helpful, since I discovered some new pages, and many that I added to my watchlist. : )

Partly because of the concerns of advertising during this RfA, and partly because it sounds like too much work (smile), I don't plan to thank everyone individually on their talk pages.

So again, I want to thank all who responded. It was much appreciated - have I over-used that word yet? : )

Thank you very much. - jc37 21:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• See Jc37's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool.
• Random diffs and edit count on the talk page. --ais523 08:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion (for expressing views without numbering)

Support

1. Weak Support. Despite the pile-on to Mcginnly's position, I actually thought the nominee's response to question four was reasonable. The nominee gave an answer supported by his reasons and cited policy to support that answer. I find it a stretch to turn "I think the rules are set up to be equal for all" into "the rules are the rules and they're just as applicable to 7 minute old vandals as they are to long term contributors". My only real hesitation is the low number of contributions given the length of time here, hence my weak (moral) support. Agent 86 19:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

   When you go through my contributions list, you may see several edit summaries saying: "misc comments" for my CfD responses. I tend to answer all CfDs on a page at once (when possible) rather than a single edit for each nomination, so you could probably multiply my CfD edits at least by 8 (or more). My main edit on Robin and other articles/lists are typically done mostly in one or two edits as well. I guess I never saw the need to "rack up" my edit count. But I do understand your concern. Thanks "chief" : ) - jc37 20:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

2. Support - Mike 19:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
3. Support Because the user is interested in XfD, The Wikipedia namespace edit count is good. This user is interested in deletion tasks by the look of it--not vandal fighting--so I think that should be kept in mind when evaluating this RfA. I know that an admin has a wide range of responsibilities, and it seems as though most opposition stems from answers to the blocking questions. I don't think there is anything within the user's past edit history (or within said answers) though, to indicate anything but a calm and fair temperment applied to what little blocking Jc37 is likely to be doing. Irongargoyle 02:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
4. Support i've been looking over the edits for this candidate and he seems quite communicative and level headed. On the wizard talk page he kept his cool despite the consensus going against him. Seems to make good use of the user talk pages too. A long series of edits in April on User talk:Hnsampat re:TWW categories (here is one diff) seem informed and friendly. A recent discussion with Cyde on userboxes shows initiative [1] as well as one on CfD at David Kernow talk page. I could go on giving examples since there are very few fluff edits in his user page edits. this user has a consitent history of working on categories, including categories for deletion. All in all, it seems he could use the tools. While the first answer above might be brief it is valid. I have now problem with his answer to Mcginnly's guestion as outlined below in response to Mailor Diablo. David D. (Talk) 04:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
5. Support. DarthVader 10:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
6. Support. I especially like the answer to the blocking an established user question. Established users and even (gasp) admins are not above the law. The rules do in fact, apply to them too. --Kbdank71 14:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
7. Moral Support. You appear to be a fairly good user, but the message on my talk page indicates that you're not fully aware of some important - if obscure - facets of Wikipedia. I'm certainly not going to oppose you on this basis, especially since this is not the kind of thing that people draw particularly attention to (unlike actual policies...), and the obscurity of this particular point doesn't lead me to neutrality either. Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 14:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
8. Uninformed support. I have no real idea what requirements or views a user should have to be an admin, so take my position for what it's worth. But I like Jc's attitude and adaptability, and think that's good for Wikipedia, so I presume it's good for adminship.--Mike Selinker 15:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
9. Weak support Changed my mind again, due to a good response below. Weak because this RfA should not have been advertised and the edit count is a little lower than my standards, but the answers are now satisfactory. --Alex (Talk) 19:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
10. Strong support. I wonder how many of the people weighing in on this have looked at his edit history as opposed to going only by Jc37's responses on this page. I have been impressed by Jc37's contributions in many ways and have been particularly impressed by how well this individual handles conflict. In fact, I know of someone who recently solicited Jc37's input on a matter where that individual was trying to avoid an edit war with someone else. Even though the one soliciting Jc37's input had actually disagreed with Jc37 about a key point about the same article, he considered Jc37 the appropriate voice of reason to call upon. Jc37's arguments had been rational and articulate, and Jc37 had shown great patience dealing with an unreasonable user who repeatedly runs into conflict with others. Wryspy 20:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
11. Support. Whilst I understand some of the hesitation indicated in the sections below, my experience of and interaction with jc37 mirrors that which people describe above, so I'm happy to support.  David Kernow (talk) 12:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
12. Support. The user did some comment advertising, against WP:SPAM, however, this does not concern me, since the user is repentant and wouldn't do it again. Lesson learned, policy understood. A user does not have to understand *all* policy, as this is quite difficult in practice (there is so much, and it contradicts). It is far more important to understand the policy surrounding the admin tasks that the user is going to specialize in. -- RM 16:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
13. Support - Canderous Ordo 22:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
14. Support I feel that some opposition to JC's RfA is unfair, as his nomination didn't represent him very well. I very much agree with his views on blocking and other admin-related policies, and he has my vote. Steveo2 19:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Answers to questions, particularly blocking. I need a more thoughtful analysis than just 'the rules are the rules and they're just as applicable to 7 minute old vandals as they are to long term contributors'. 'Cool down blocks' on established users are also rather questionable in their effectiveness on established users in my opinion. --Mcginnly | Natter 09:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

   • While I respect your freedom of choice to such an opinion, I disagree with your assessment of my response. I did not say "Rules are rules". We live by the WP:5P here, and that includes WP:IAR when appropriate. My response was and is: "It depends on the situation". It doesn't matter if you're a 7 minute vandal or an experienced user with 50,000 edits. If you revert an article 5 times in 5 minutes, there's a fairly decent likelyhood that you're going to be blocked. If there is a heavily contested debate going on, wading in and blocking everyone is a typically a bad idea. For one thing, it likely isn't going to help move toward resolution of the debate. And there are other ways to cool a situation besides blocking, as well. It's a matter of reading the situation. And don't forget what I said in answer 3 about communication. All in all, there are just too many additional possible circumstances to list. As I said, every situation is different, and in my opinion, blanket statements about an unknown future are likely not helpful. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and I don't happen to own one either : ) - jc37 05:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

2. Oppose per Mcginnly. --Nearly Headless Nick 10:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose: per above. —Wknight94 (talk) 10:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose per Mcginnly. Michael 10:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose per all reasons above. Please try again after three months. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose. Lack of experience of encyclopedia building, per low mainspace edit count and preponderance of minor edits (often not marked as such). Espresso Addict 16:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose. Fails several of my criteria and poor answers. Themindset 17:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose per above. I suggest withdrawling and trying again in a few months. Stubbleboy 19:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose per all above, particularly your answers to the questions and low main space edits. Wikipediarules2221 23:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose Advertising your RFA is usually frowned upon [2]. The JPS^{talk to me} 14:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

    I was under the impression that "spam" was the concern (similar to a situation we had the other day with an AfD), which is why I only chose a small set number of people who I respect (and who, have not always agreed with me, as noted above). And as it said, the choice was tough, and I know I've forgotten someone else who was likely as deserving. In my time on Wikipedia, I have come to respect many editors, including those (as I said) who may at times not agree with me. I also was wondering if perhaps it was "slow" because Geni withdrew his nomination soon after I placed mine, so it may have not shown up for any length of time on watchlists of those who watch this page (and who may not have the specialised templates which also monitor this page). In any case, thank you for taking the time and effort to come comment. - jc37 14:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

    You seem a great user, and would be happy to support in the future. The JPS^{talk to me} 15:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

11. Oppose. Weak answers but I stayed neutral, but advertising for comments is not a good idea. It's against policy. An admin will need to know policy better than that. See the "Canvassing" section in WP:SPAM. While I admit that this is a grey area, admins need to know policy better to stay away from grey areas. Moreschi 16:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

    occasional light use of cross-posting to talk pages is part of Wikipedia's common practice That's from the arbcom. And besides, admins stray into grey areas all the time. It's part of the job. Doesn't mean they are bad admins, or have abused their tools. --Kbdank71 16:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

    Asking for comments in your RFA is a very bad idea, flat. I know the user (who, I will, by the way, be delighted to support in the future when more experience has been acquired) meant no harm, but there are wicked people in the world who do not assume good faith as they ought and I hate people like that!! Plaigarised jokery apart, the problem is that an admin has to know policy better than this. Anyone who sails very close to the wind in the middle of their RFA will hit the buffers as an admin, who have to know policy inside out. My vote stands: I don't feel that the user knows enough about policy for adminship to appropriate at this time, quite apart from the weak answers to the questions. With best wishes for the future, Moreschi 19:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

    #Weak oppose (change from neutral). A good editor, but even after expansion the answers still seem very vague, particularly question 4, and I also don't like the fact this RfA was advertised - users can look here for themselves. I'm not sure I understand your blocking policy. --Alex (Talk) 17:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

    Vague because I chose to not make blanket declarations of what arbitrary policy I may have come up with? (I ask, because I have not come up with an arbitrary policy such as described. Hence, "it depends on the situation", because I don't think that every situation will fit in some arbitrarily designed box. My answer is still the same: communication. Find out what the issues are - usually through discussion and reasearch of contribution pages - and attempt to work out an amicable solution, if possible.) If you feel I misunderstood your statement, please feel free to expand on your responses. Anyway, I do appreciate you taking the time to voice your thoughts. If you have any further questsions, feel free to ask. - jc37 17:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

    You don't really explain why you would block a user. Yes you've said what the rules are, but haven't really explained what exactly you would do. --Alex (Talk) 18:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

    Just to be clear, are you looking for a hypothetical? (an instance where I might think a block is necessary?) - jc37 18:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

    Yes, relating to an experienced user. --Alex (Talk) 18:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

    Ok. First let me state that I tend to try to avoid hypotheticals when applied to people because they can tend to polarise, etc etc etc. (Similar to agreeing with Tolkien in regards to analogies in fiction being a bad idea.) However, with that in mind, I believe you've asked a sincere question. Give me a moment and I'll put my imagination to work and try to come up with some. - jc37 18:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

    (starting indent over)

    Well there are the basics, such as WP:3RR: If an editor is constantly reverting a page so that he or she is disrupting the work of others, a block is possible. Or consistant/persistant vandalism (page blanking, the various page move vandals, etc.) But the problem I see with the inherent question, is that I would hope that most experienced editors wouldn't be doing such things. Same thing for violations of WP:CIVIL to the point of (again) disruption. Though in most cases I can think of, there is usually a "ramp up" to such situations, and time to drop a quick word (such as the admin's noticeboard) to get advice, or if I felt it necessary, help in mediation of the situation. (I'm a strong believer in "many eyes".) There are also the various legal concerns, dealing with copyright or personal info or threats, but again, I doubt that those would be things I would be involved in the blocking of. Two main key words are "persistant disruption". I keep feeling like I am attempting re-writing (or at least summarising) the WP:BLOCK page : ) - jc37 19:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

    Thank you for taking the time to explain your answer, which I'm pretty impressed with. Changing to weak support. --Alex (Talk) 19:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

12. Oppose per Mcginnly and RfA advertising, which is heavily frowned upon. Canadian-Bacon ^{t c e} 19:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

    Comment. RfA advertising? Why shouldn't he (he?) call upon people who are familiar with his contributions to look at his RfA? Check the spam guidelines. A friendly notice is not spam. Jc37 didn't ask anyone to vote for or against. He notified some people who are familiar with his work. He notified me regardless of the fact that in his recent disagreement with B___ (name omitted), D___ and I backed B's opinion, not Jc37's, but I admired the rational, patient way Jc37 presented his side of the issue and managed a compromise. Jc37 risked the possibility that I'd vote against him. He had no idea where I stood with regard to him personally. He just respected my work. I find that commendable. Frankly, if anyone who contributes regularly to the same kind of pages I do applied for adminship without notifying those of us who'd be most affected, I'd resent it. I found it weird to see comments here from people who didn't seem to know much or anything about his past work. Wryspy 23:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

13. Oppose for now I was, I believe, among the first users to interact with Jc37 and I've been working with him/her quite a bit, especially on the various articles related to The West Wing (TV series). I think s/he is very friendly and has a knack and dedication for cleaning up and organizing articles. (The current organization of List of politicians on The West Wing is largely due to Jc37's efforts.) However, I must oppose the RfA for now for several reasons. Jc37 has come a long way since the early days. Back then, s/he could be a bit stubborn (although always very cordial). Specifically, it took a rather forceful, concerted effort on the part of me and Scm83x to get Jc37 to be more cooperative in a dispute we had over some West Wing articles. This is not a problem these days. Jc37 has matured as a user quite a bit over the past six months or so, but I feel as though there is some maturing left to do. Furthermore, while Jc37 has worked hard to understand Wikipedia policies and such, I feel as though there isn't enough of a grasp yet to merit adminship. Jc37 works tirelessly and is very friendly, but isn't ready to be an admin yet, in my opinion. Perhaps after some more experience, Jc37 will be ready to be an admin. --Hnsampat 02:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
14. Oppose. One's participation in compiling List of characters on The West Wing doesn't excuse his antagonistic and reckless attitude towards quality editors. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

    While I disagree with your caricature of my "attitude", Please accept my appreciation of your comments, and the appreciation of the irony. - jc37 10:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

15. Weak Oppose As per Mcginnly --huntersquid <°)))>< ^{Calamari Cove} 21:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
16. Oppose per nominee's lack of mainspace editing experience and, perhaps more importantly, the "appreciation" offered to Ghirla. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
17. Oppose per Angus McLellan (Talk) --Pan Gerwazy 16:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
18. Oppose. Markovich292 00:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
19. Oppose per the above comments. RFerreira 22:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
20. Oppose per his comment to Ghirla, which seems to me to rather prove Ghirla's point, as well as per Canadian-Bacon. Heimstern Läufer 04:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

    Oppose per everything above. Wikipediarules2221 00:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

    FYI - this is your second vote to this page : ) - jc37 00:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral. Per Moreschi. íslenskur fellibylur #12 _(samtal) 11:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

   Neutral. Seems like a good editor with a good edit count, but the answers to the questions were not at all impressive, particularly when replying to Mcginnly's. This vote may change either way. Changing to oppose. Advertising is not on. Moreschi 09:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

2. Neutral per Moreschi – perhaps try again in a few months' time? — riana_dzasta _{wreak havoc|damage report} 12:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
3. Neutral. Jc37 seems like a very friendly, helpful editor, but I don't think s/he quite grasps the nuances of WP policy as it pertains to blocking. Perhaps admin coaching might be a better next step. -- Merope ^Talk 14:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
4. Neutral Answers to 1,3 & 4 don't demonstrate a range of experience with other editors or show an understanding of policies. I suggest that this editor either goes for an editor review and/or admin coaching before reapplying in ~3000 edits time. (aeropagitica) 16:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
5. Neutral You need more experience before I can support you.--Húsönd 17:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
6. Neutral Looks like a good editor with good contribs. Just need more experience. JungleCat talk/contrib 20:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
7. Neutral, this user scored 16 19 on my RfA points table, enough to warrant a Neutral. -- Lego@lost _{Rocks Collide!} | 22:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
8. Neutral Weak answers.-- danntm ^T _C 01:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
9. Neutral Poor answers to questions. The "speedy" stuff? Please revise them. --Kevin_b_er 15:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
10. Neutral The answer to #4 was strong; the rest of them were very weak responses. Jcam 15:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

    #Neutral as above, weak answers, but I'll change my opinion if you expand on them. --Alex (Talk) 15:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

    Changed to weak oppose. --Alex (Talk) 17:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

11. Neutral. This future is bright, but I am concerned by some minor points. Ian¹³/t 17:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
12. Neutral. I was flattered to be notified by this user about his RfA, but I don't feel I know enough about the user to contribute to the RfA. Carcharoth 13:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
13. Neutral. Heart's in the right place and will probably get adminship at some point, just perhaps not right now. --kingboyk 17:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Abstain

1. Strong oppose. Suggest that you take some time to read through Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Giano, and re-consider Mcginnly's rationale. - Mailer Diablo 14:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC) Abstain. - Mailer Diablo 08:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

   I don't think the Giano case is relevant with resepct to his answer. Anyone who is persistently revert warring could be blocked regardless of their status. The Giano case you cite was a strange case where Tony blocked him since he 'thought' his opinion was disruptive. That is a completely different ball game to a block due to disruption on an article. Mailer diablo, i respect your opinion, but are you implying that a long term user can never be blocked? This makes no sense and as jc37 states "It depends on the situation." I would hope that any admin or established user who was blocked for persistent disruptive editing on any article would admit their transgression and apologise for acting like a child. I would also hope that such circumstances are very rare. David D. (Talk) 21:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

   No, I'm not implying that established users cannot be blocked, in fact no editors/sysops are immune. Even then, it's usually the ArbCom who handle them (as you said, they're rare). I find his answer to Q4 poorly thought out, and I'd want to point out that blocking is a serious matter used for clear-cut, serious violations and should not be handed out arbitrarily, and the case I quoted above is to illustrate the possible controversies of a "cooling down block". Hope this clears up, :) - Mailer Diablo 08:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

   From what I've seen, "established users" are blocked a bit more frequently than apparently you surmise. Tony Sidaway himself was during related events to what you pointed to above (and I believe that he has stated that he does not contest it was appropriate). I might suggest you check out this link, for some further examples and discussion. You may also wish to note my edit on that page, which predates your initial comment here : ) - jc37 08:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

   Thanks, I get what you actually mean now. Wishing you the best. :) - Mailer Diablo 08:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

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.