Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/J.smith

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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


[edit] J.smith

Final (48/1/1) Ended 17:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

J.smith (talk • contribs) – I have come across J.smith when he stepped in to help a user about an article I had deleted ~ looking at his work he looks like the sort of user we should have as an Administrator Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 16:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I gratefully accept this nomination. ---J.S (T/C) 19:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
About Me

Well, I'm grateful for this nomination. I really appreciate it. I never thought anyone would nominate me. :) I've been editing wikipedia for a about a year now and I've enjoyed the experience. This place is truly one of the most valuable resources on the Internet and I'm proud to be part of it.

I'm not the most articulate person, so most of my work here is wikignomish/wikifae in nature. I've done a lot of Special:Random cleanup, xFD (mostly AFD) discussions, RC patrol and following though on {{helpme}} requests. In the article space, most of my significant contributions relate to paranormal topics and the occasional BLP and business article (Such as the infamous Arch Coal). ---J.S (T/C) 19:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the YouTube controversy

Much controversy has surrounded my removal of YouTube links recently... and I expect it to come up here. It seems to me that much of this controversy has stemmed from a misunderstanding of the situation. I think a lot of people think I'm removing every You-Tube link I find, but that's simply not true. I review each link within the context of the article and make a decision to remove or keep. If it's not obvious, I look at the video on YT and make a judgement call.

Every time a question is raised about either the project in general or the removal of a specific link I make an attempt to respond thoroughly. I've made changes in how I do things based on input on various talk pages.

Before I started the project I sought input on WP:AN and #Wikipedia-en and received unanimous support. A week latter I made a new thread there and received nearly unanimous support. I've tried to be as open as possible.

I hope that clears up some misunderstandings on the YouTube situation. ---J.S (T/C) 19:38, 5 December 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: Well, I intend to keep working in the copy-vio field. With admin tools I'll be able to take an active roll on WP:Copyright problems. I also !vote in xFD often, so closing them is something I'd participate in.... by extension, CfSD tends to generate a backlog that I'd help out with. I've been watching {{unblock}} recently... a lot of requests end up sitting there for hours. I can see a little more help is needed in that field as well. ---J.S (T/C) 19:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Well, I do a lot of gnome type work so I don't have any FAs under my belt... but I do think that a few articles I've made significant contributions to look good. Roswell UFO incident was a collaborative effort, but I think it has turned out to be an excellent article. I rescued Friday the 13th from the pit of vandalism and rewrote most of the article from scratch. I'm not the most elegant of authors, so it's hard to point to just one article. Oh, I think I've done a good job in {{helpme}} patrol recently... but ya don't really need the mop for that:) ---J.S (T/C) 19:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
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: Yes, of course. Stress is a fundamental part of life. Something that stand out? Well, there are a few situations that come to mind. The first "conflict" I was involved in was very early in my career in on wikipedia. I'm a little embarrassed now of the situation... :) It as over a online video game article. An anonymous editor had a grudge against the game and repeatedly pov-pushed. I ended up responding with comments that were less then civil. I was highly frustrated by the situation because it seemed like no-one cared about the "fight" that was going on. I actually am glad for the experience. Even tho I'm not proud of how things happened, I learned a lot about policy, dispute resolution system and community standards. (If you want to check the situation out you can see the talk page and it's two archives.) ---J.S (T/C) 19:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
4. Optional question from Gracenotes: In what general cases should WP:IAR be applied, as the policy relates to dealing with situations you may encounter as an administrator? Also, please list several hypothetical proposals and attempted processes to which WP:SNOW could be applied. Gracenotes T §
A: Gasp! I'm shocked I got this question! ;) Anyway, since you asked for a general answer, I shall give you one: When it furthers the goal of building an encyclopedia, and, when following the rules shall hinder the goal. IAR would always be invoked with much forethought and only as often is as absolutely necessary.
A2: The concept behind SNOW is one that makes sense.... with the understanding that it should be invoked very infrequently. Why drag something out when the outcome is obvious, and continuing with the process is disruptive? Process is important, but continuing the flow of constructive editing is too. It's a delicate balance. You want some specific examples? Well... That's a hard one. If a AFD debate stats to degrade into a sock/meatpuppet fest and no more actual !votes are being added, then it's likely a good time to SNOW the debate. Also, perhaps an ill-conceived policy proposal (Wikipedia:Meka teh wikipadya da vote) should be snowed after a civil explanation why. A snow in that case can prevent newbie biting.
To be clear, if a snow is "contested" then it's likely a good idea to revert the SNOW and like events take there course. Basically in short, IAR should be used VERY seldomly and the admin who is SNOWing should be ready to revert it. (Maybe it's time to write WP:UNSNOW?) ---J.S (T/C) 04:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
General comments

Discussion

Support

  1. As nominator - of course Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 17:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support - looks good. Has done a great job handling the youTube situation, doing so consitantly and methodical without causing any problems --T-rex 22:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support His record and responses make me confident he will be a good admin. TSO1D 22:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support Good contribs, and balanced edit count. —The Great Llamamoo? 22:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support I see nothing wrong. Edits look balanced. — Seadog 22:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
    Comment: Just for the sake of disclosure, 500+ recent edits were using AWB. I don't know if that throws off your balance. ---J.S (T/C) 22:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
    Comment:What I meant was that you have a solid mainspace edits and wikipedia edits (rather than all in one area). Okay my rant stops here :) — Seadog 01:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support Everything looks reasonable. I really like the way you handled the youTube situation.--Kchase T 22:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  7. Strong Support. A very strong nominee. He's balanced himself in all aspects of Wikipedia, and I am impressed by his answers and his participation in article discussion and namespace discussion. Nishkid64 22:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support. Seems like an ideal candidate. (I do somewhat disapprove of your use ;) of easter egg links in your answers, though it doesn't bother me as long as you don't use them in articles!) -- Renesis (talk) 23:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support Looks like a reasonable candidate for the mop. (aeropagitica) 23:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support--SUIT 23:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support. bibliomaniac15 01:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support A very sincere and good editor. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support Cleared up all the misunderstandings w before the discussions. Thats smart --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 02:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  14. I have had personal interactions with J.smith, and found him to be level-headed and helpful. He'll make a fine administrator. Dmcdevit·t 04:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 05:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support. All checks out well, we need more people to deal with backlogs and I like his initative with regards to nonreliable sources such as YouTube videos. Sandstein 05:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  17. I see no problem here. (Radiant) 10:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support. Good and trustworthy contributor. utcursch | talk 10:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  19. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this candidate! - 11:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support always very civil, sufficient experience, plus adminship isn't a big deal. Addhoc 13:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support someone who deals positively & constructively with YouTube has my support --Herby talk thyme 14:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  22. I like! -- Kicking222 14:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support I am confident he's going to be a good admin. ← ANAS Talk? 15:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support I've only ever seen good things from this editor, and I particularly like the description of the way that he is dealing with the Youtube question - boldly, methodically, and fairly, but with community input. --TheOtherBob 17:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support Adminship for J.smith seems like an ideologically small change, but one that can, in practice, only bring more benefit to Wikipedia than this user already brings. Also, gets that there really is no general case for WP:IAR, and seems (by his explanation) to have the judgement to deal with specific manifestations of that policy. :) Good luck. Gracenotes T § 17:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support looks good.-- danntm T C 18:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  27. support per Gracenotes, who said it well. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 18:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  28. Hell Yes! Support I have been extremely impressed with the calm way he has handled the youtube thing. Has dealt with editors who disagree with the exercise with curtesy and respect while still making his points in a civil way that took account of the objections raised. [Basically lots of things I'm jealous that I don't always do well]. Spartaz 19:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  29. - crz crztalk 20:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support He's a good user and would be a better Admin. Thank You and Happy Holidays | Cocoaguy (Talk) 02:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support Sarah Ewart 02:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  32. Strong Support Never have I seen a man more qualified with your modesty and dignity. Bravo. Sharkface217 04:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support a good candidate --Steve (Slf67) talk 05:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support sounds good to me. James086Talk | Contribs 09:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support MustTC 11:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  36. As much support as I can give He helped me, as I am a new user set up a talk page and user page! He also helps me with everything I need! Thank You! WikiMan53 T/C 15:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support. Rettetast 16:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support; definite yes on this one; I've bumped into him many times and he's always doing something right. Antandrus (talk) 01:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support - excellent editor, can use the tools effectively, no issues or concerns for me. Newyorkbrad 02:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support You deserve it. Good luck. -- Szvest Wiki me up ® 16:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support, J.smith has demonstrated familiarity with Wikipedia policies and procedures and a willingness to take on maintenance tasks. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support Hard worker. The Mirror of the Sea 01:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  43. Supportper above. teh tennisman 13:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  44. Support, meets most of my expectations.--TBCΦtalk? 14:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support John254 03:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  46. Support passes my criteria †he Bread 21:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  47. Support lots of Wikipedia entries in contribs and seems to be aware of the policies quite fine.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 23:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  48. Support The guy's got gusto! --InShaneee 06:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

Note: - lengthy comments by 74.116.245.181 (talk • contribs • WHOIS) moved to talk page. Note that IPs can't !vote. MER-C 07:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  1. Oppose. user is under qualified/inexperienced to handle copyright violations. he should have a better understanding on the subject if his main goal is to handle copyrights violations. using judgement calls is not the best answer to deleting content on a subject he is unfamiliar with.

quote from a member of the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation. "These are cases where I would generally not delete the entry unless the alleged copyright holder complains. Given Wikipedia's potential liability, after a complaint, immediate action may be necessary, although later correction is possible. But it is not Wikipedians' job to excessively "police" content for copyright infringements, especially when such may not even exist.

In general, when in doubt, do not delete. When "fairly certain", ask the author first in /Talk. The notion of "intellectual property" is dubious at best, and Wikipedia should not support it beyond the limits given by LAW. Personally, I will restore any entries which I do not see as copyright infringements, and I encourage you to do the same.

-- w:User:Eloquence"

i like to state that i hold no gurges on this user and praise most of his work with the community. however, i stumpled acrossed some of his removals and read his talk page regarding the issue with User:Tvccs. i feel a delay in adminship would only strength his request in the future. — Accouttovote (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I just want to be 100% clear, so that everyone is on the same page, so forgive a few quick questions. Are you 74.116.245.181 (talk • contribs • WHOIS), whose comments were moved to the talk page? Are you also User:Tvccs, who initially raised this issue a few weeks ago on J.Smith's talk page? (I don't mean to accuse you of any sock-puppetry or anything like that - I just want to make sure everything's out in the open.) Thanks, --TheOtherBob 18:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes I am that user and not I'm not User:Tvccs, Tvccs would certainly hold more weight. J.smith has stated youtube has a reputation as “a no-name blog for the most part” on his talk page. I just wanted to show that wikipedia shares the same reputation outside its community. I am not a major contributor to wikipedia. However, I am a major reader of it’s articles. Having a under qualified admin to handle this situation will lead to more problems than solutions given his “safe than sorry/judgment” approach. In order to make a fair judgment the user should be highly educated on the subject.
  1. Oppose. Same reason stated above. user is under qualified/inexperienced to handle copyright violations. can't an opinion be valid just because its logical? why all these hassels to oppose and so few to remove contents? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Asdflkjqwer (talk • contribs). (This user has less then 100 edits on wikipedia, and 3 since the end of October)
    Since RFA isn't a vote in the strictest sense of the word, we need to create a "bar" to keep socks from trying to influence the process. However, your objections are noted (and responded too) on the talk page where they have a chance to influence people's opinions. ---J.S (T/C) 19:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral- You seem to be admin material, but you should use more edit summaries.--SUIT 23:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
"Edit summary usage for J.smith: 99% for major edits and 96% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace." [1] I assure you that the few (7) that I've missed in the last 300 were not an intentional disregard for wikipedia guidelines. ---J.S (T/C) 23:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
There's an option in preferences --> editing, at the very bottom to remind you when you don't type them. That should put you at 100 pretty quickly.--Kchase T 23:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Sometimes when you use the '+' button to make new sections you don't get the option of adding an edit summary. Could this account for this? Spartaz 19:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Naw, when you use that it uses the section name as the edit summary. ---J.S (T/C) 02:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  1. Neutral - I'm concerned about the user's experience and familiarity, to be frank. Edits like this one during an AFD (demonstrating unfamiliarity with history merges) and his repeated edits to {{para-stub}} to include the WikiProject link in the stub text itself worry me somewhat. However that being said, he's defined his scope of activities in Q1 in such a way that I feel he'd do little harm if he obtains the mop and bucket, would just like him to be a little more knowledgeable before I personally could support. -- nae'blis 05:28, 8 December 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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_adminship_J.smith_7b58.html"