Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jkelly

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Jkelly

Final (47/1/0) ended 05:45 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Jkelly (talk • contribs) – Jkelly has been with us on Wikipedia for about 3 months now. In that period he has made 3688 edits, 2273 (62%) of which are in the article namespace. He also has 299 deleted edits, a lot of which are speedy tags and other deletion-related stuff. He participates constructively at AFD and other Wikipedia procedures. He's also done work with Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use, and it would be good to have more admins interested in dealing with images. I'm especially impressed at how he is very calm and intelligent when interacting with users (see [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]). I doubt a cool head like this would abuse admin powers. :) Coffee 17:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, with thanks for the kind words, and am looking forward to getting feedback from the community. Jkelly 03:54, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support - seems to have it all together. BD2412 T 18:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. Support I like his responses and I have seen this user around --Jaranda(watz sup) 18:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. Support, as nominator. Coffee 18:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support good user from what I've seen and three month experience is no problem with me. Admin is no big deal.Gator (talk) 18:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support. KHM03 19:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support. In my experience, this editor is reasonable and thoughtful, and respectful of consensus. Trustworthy. Xoloz 19:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  7. Support Support per Xoloz - he has high standards. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 20:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  8. Support Makes helpful remarks. Good luck! Wallie 21:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  9. Strong Support. Im not even gonna say "I thought he was one", its too banal... Oh, I just said it.lol. Seriously, I think that Jkelly is a great Wikipedian. I also want to say thank you for giving me the feedback on the Celine Dion peer review. Good luck in your RFA! Θrǎne (t) (c) (e-mail) 21:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  10. No problems here.--Sean|Black 22:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support. --Carnildo 23:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support sounds to good to be true :-D KnowledgeOfSelf | talk. 00:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  13. Support per above, good user. -Greg Asche (talk) 00:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  14. Merovingian 00:50, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  15. Support JKelly would make a great Wikipedia administrator He's excellent at conflict resolution, staying cool when the editing gets hot, and, in three months, he has attained a better grasp on the principles and policies of Wikipedia than people who have been here threee times as long have. --FuriousFreddy 01:15, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  16. Support - I feel that Jkelly will make a fine admin. Cheers -- Ianblair23 (talk) 02:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  17. Support. Definitely. Enochlau 03:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  18. Support, looks like an excellent candidate for adminship. --Stormie 03:32, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  19. Wait ... he's only been here three months? "Thought he was one". Support, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  20. Support appears to be a strong contributor.MONGO 04:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  21. Support gets involved in the fiddly areas of wikimaintenance. Physchim62 (talk) 05:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  22. Support. Good contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:28, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  23. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 07:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  24. Support. Kirill Lokshin 11:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  25. Support, unlikely to abuse administrator tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 11:50, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  26. Support - you mean I haven't voted already? --Celestianpower háblame 12:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  27. Support Fine contributions. Solid top to bottom and no attitude issues raised. Marskell 13:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  28. Support. Good user. Ann Heneghan (talk) 00:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  29. {{subst:User:Titoxd/RfaClicheNo1}} Titoxd's RFAbot 18:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  30. Support. Will make a very good admin. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  31. Support --pgk(talk) 18:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  32. Support seems fine. Dlyons493 Talk 02:02, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  33. Support. Good contributions, no reason to think admin tools will be abused. Jayjg (talk) 07:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  34. Support, absolutely — hard to believe he's only been here three months...--Lordkinbote 23:31, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  35. I thought I aleady voted! El_C 04:02, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  36. Support—jiy (talk) 06:47, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  37. Support Fahrenheit Royale 17:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  38. Support of course. Izehar 22:31, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  39. Support Ramallite (talk) 16:34, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  40. Support. Should make a fine administrator. --GraemeL (talk) 16:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  41. Support - good editor. +MATIA ☎ 18:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  42. Support Asset to wikipedia and despite name similarity he doesn't urinate on 14 year olds. SchmuckyTheCat 22:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  43. Support The edit contributions are a testament to the value of this person here at Wikipedia. Admin status is an excellent idea in this case. --P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 01:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  44. Support. --Martin Osterman 03:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  45. Support. Kefalonia 18:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  46. Support. Looks like a wash. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:23, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  47. Support. utcursch | talk 03:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Well, we need one oppose vote. Nothing personal but I like to see about a years worth of activity. Klonimus 06:45, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

  • I thought I'd ask if you had any previous Wikipedia accounts? Flipping to your earliest contrib's I was quite surprised: disambiging, link-repairing, full edit summaries right from the start. In no way a criticism, just curiosity. Marskell 18:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
A: At a guess, I made about a dozen edits as an anon before registering, and some more when I was being logged-out in the midst of editing. The disambig link-repair was inspired by an edit summary I saw and seemed like a good way to teach myself the interface. Jkelly 18:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Thx. I'll be supporting. Marskell 13:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Awww, shucks. Someone I welcomed to WP is now being nominated. They just grow up so fast don't they? --LV (Dark Mark) 18:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A. I am mostly interested in adminship for the ability to help removing copyright infringements, which is a pet peeve of mine. I became interested in copyright and fair use images after some over-reliance on single sources when I was inspired to start a few articles on famous Canadians with my last name, and User:Fawcett5 expressed his concern about fair use of text. After doing some research on the subject, I became very interested in it, and joined Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use. In contrast, I would enjoy helping out with the backlog at Category:NowCommons. I am both a big fan of the Commons and feel that sorting images must be one of the most pleasant cleanup chores.
I'm not a big fan of the edit summaries that the rollback button leaves, and, if given adminship, would likely reserve it for remarkably fast-paced, persistent vandalism (which I have seen happen). When it comes to blocking/unblocking and page protection/unprotection, I feel strongly that the question an admin should ask is never whether they think personally that those things should happen, but whether there is strong consensus, as expressed by policy and guidelines, to use those tools in each individual case. I'd suggest that it is rare that urgent need of those measures coincides with a controversial use of them.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I put up The Waterboys at Peer Review, after doing a lot of work on that article and related ones (members, albums), and hope to be taking it to WP:FAC after allowing some more time for feedback on it. Three articles that I have created were used by Did You Know?; Aradia, or the Gospel of the Witches, Canon Episcopi and Sharon Shannon. I've done some copyediting that I believe went well, such as this. I'm also pleased with free images I have found and uploaded to the Commons, and the time that I spent putting Aradia up at Wikisource.
I'm very invested in footnotes, and, regardless of how this RfA goes, I look forward to my main contribution to Wikipedia to be writing well-referenced articles.
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. Those are two separate questions, at least for me. The one major content dispute I've played a central role in was at Talk:Stregheria. What didn't work well there was that my first appearance at that article was overly brusque, and started things off on the wrong foot. What did work well there was that I took my time in regards to discussion and changes. I spent a lot of time researching the subject, began rewriting some of the surrounding articles so that they were thoroughly referenced [6] [7], created a couple of new articles about notable related subjects (such as Aradia and Raven Grimassi), and finally, re-wrote the article in question. This experience has led me to conclude that the absolute best way to move content disputes along is to be absolutely strict about WP:CITE and WP:NOR. I've contributed thoughts and, hopefully, assistance in other editing disputes, for example at Talk:Fascism and Talk:Ian Paisley, which are both ongoing, but, as far as I can recall, the above is the only dispute in which I was arguing for a substantial, controversial change.
The only time I have felt "stress" from a user was when I stuck my nose into an argument developing over guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Music. I was surprised at the level of nastiness that developed, asked another user that I have a good collaborative relationship with for sympathy, and mentioned the incident to an uninvolved administrator. When it comes to my User page being vanadalised, or seeing nasty edit summaries directed at me, I am pretty thick-skinned.
The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_adminship_Jkelly_25de.html"