Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JHunterJ

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

[edit] JHunterJ

(38/0/0); ended 00:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

JHunterJ (talk · contribs) - Here's a guy who I found reletively recently at an area of administrator backlog. Yup, he does what he can in those areas already despite not being an admin, therefore making him qualified. His main concentration is in disambiguation and page-moving, where he's made a lot of edits in a much-needed but little-recognized part of Wikipedia. Over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Malplaced disambiguation pages is a very tricky backlog that requires administrators to look over everything. He's done some work there, and giving him the tools would help keep this backlog (that no one ever wants to tackle, may I add) clean. He's also contributed to the encyclopedia itself as well. Certainly a guy who could use the tools, seems very courteous from what I've seen, and would be beneficial to have as an admin.Wizardman 20:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept this nomination. I'll be happy to help mop up instead of just pointing out where mops are needed (as I currently do with the malplaced dabs). I'm opinionated but not bull-headed, and I can adjust my opinions and cop to mistakes.

[edit] Questions for the candidate

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: Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Malplaced disambiguation pages, and other Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation tasks. WP:SPEEDYs and other backlogs as needed/capable.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Helping get the distinctions between disambiguations and lists of people who happen to share a given name or family name ironed out. Lots of cleanup, from Category:Disambiguation pages in need of cleanup to spelling and grammar fixes with WP:AWB. Digging up print sources, e.g. Project Excelsior and for Marilyn Manson.
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: Some users have caused me some head-shaking recently, one in particular on a AfD tear through role-playing game articles that he didn't really understand. But I have been keeping WP in perspective since taking a wikibreak from Nov-Feb.
4. Hi, JHunterJ. Would you comment on this apparent conflict? Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 03:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
A. Sure. Iron maiden, at one point, was redirecting to Iron maiden (disambiguation), which plopped it into the Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Malplaced disambiguation pages. My first step, since I couldn't fix it myself, was to tag it {{db-move}} to fix the malplaced dab. That was undone and I pointed the mal list to the discussion going on at Talk:Iron maiden (torture device). I added a link to the discussion I was pointed to, Talk:Iron maiden (torture device)#Requested move, which I weighed in on. Later, when the discussion was complete, I returned to clear out the malplaced part. Iron maiden was redirected to Iron maiden (torture device) at that time, and I added {{db-move|Iron maiden (torture device)}} to fix the problem of the base name pointing to an article with a parenthetical disambiguation phrase. Afterwards, I also participated in the brief discussion Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (precision)#Capitalization differences (and apparent contradiction). None of these discussions were pointed up from Talk:Iron maiden, as they probably should have been if the desired outcome was to change where it went, but I only stepped in it from the malplaced list. -- JHunterJ 11:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
That's my perspective, of course. There was a step in the middle where another editor fired off a missive on my Talk page about the second db-move. If I had been colluding with the editor who turns out was edit-warring on Iron maiden, it may have been warranted. But, in my admittedly biased opinion, that's what we have AGF for. -- JHunterJ 11:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Optional questions from Mr.Z-man
Answer the following 2 questions as if you were an admin, providing some insight into your reasoning. Mr.Z-man 03:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
5. A user is reported to WP:AIV for persistent vandalism, according to their talkpage, it is a shared IP. Their contributions show an almost equal amount of vandalism and constructive edits (to different pages, by different people using the same IP at the same time). Would you block it? Why or why not?
A. It would depend on the amount of persistent vandalism, but yes, if there were "enough" vandalism, I would block it for a short period (up to 24 hours) and add a message to the IP talk page pointing to Wikipedia:Why create an account?#Blocked? to urge the constructive editor to create an account. -- JHunterJ 09:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
6. An article about a living person is nominated for deletion at AFD for non-notability. People see that the person is notable and the discussion (except for the nom) is a unanimous "keep." However, the whole article is negative in tone and very poorly sourced. How would you close the AFD and why?
A. I doubt I would close it myself, but I would ask more experienced admins to weigh in. For the hypothetical case where I had to close it, I would first extend it with a request to bring it in line with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. -- JHunterJ 09:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. Remain civil at all times. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/JHunterJ before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

Support

  1. Support as nom. Wizardman 00:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support John254 01:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support. An excellent editor. I'd prefer to see a more balanced ratio of editing (this editor has relatively few Wikipedia namespace edits), but I think he has more than enough experience. Useight 01:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support. --ShelfSkewed Talk 02:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support Looks good to me. Dureo 02:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support Here's my seal of approval. Needs the mop. Pursey Talk | Contribs 03:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support Yes. Jmlk17 05:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support I noticed even as a newbie how experienced and devoted he was in the dab area. I thought he already was an admin then. – sgeureka t•c 05:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  9. Supporting for now, pending Q4 though. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 07:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support Looks good to me. A great editor as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 09:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support Experience, trustworthy, good contributions, you have my support. Good luck. Carlosguitar 09:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support — Not necessarily perfect, yet just flawless in what you do. I'm sure you'll make a great admin!--Endroit 09:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support - no reason not to offer my support. I think enough experience has now been gained. Lradrama 14:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support, could use the tools, seems sensible enough. Neil ム 14:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  15. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 15:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support More than 13000 edits and find no reason for concern after checking the track.Pharaoh of the Wizards 19:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support His work on name disambiguation is important and excellent. A very thoughtful and conscientious editor, and I am sure that will carry over into adminship. Jokestress 01:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  18. Appears to be a good user. No reason to oppose. Acalamari 03:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support - Sure, no issues that I can see. - Philippe | Talk 03:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support, I've seen him around and I've been consistently impressed with his willingness to tackle complex issues and his ability to contribute constructively to discussions. --Muchness 07:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
    Strong Support Hopeshopes 17:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC) Note from EVula: User has been indefinitely blocked for vandalizing various RfAs. Striking comment. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support due to large number of good edits, reverts vandalism, etc. Bearian 17:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support Good answers to my questions, no reason to oppose. Mr.Z-man 17:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  23. — [ aldebaer⁠ ] 18:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support—JHunterJ has been one of my role models at WikiProject:Disambiguation, and I always look forward to his solid reasoning in discussions at project-related pages. I agree with his comment that he is "opinionated but not bull-headed". He communicates effectively and remains civil. He can be trusted with the tools; I have no doubt. --Paul Erik 02:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support. Prolog 12:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support Anything to help this amazing editor get even more disambiguation work done! Ewlyahoocom 18:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support - A good user who deserves the sysop tools. Regards, IT'S DA...Ανέκδοτο 02:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support good user will be a good admin. Carlossuarez46 18:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support Seems willing to do important but often neglected work. Could use the tools well. Pigman 02:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support - Although his Wikipedia namespace edits are lower than I'd like, I've literally seen this guy everywhere and have no quarrels. He seems to know what he's doing and has made constructive edits to the project. I don't think he'll abuse the tools and I've not seen him incivil. A fine report. :) You have my support (Hey, that rhymes!)... Cheers, Spawn Man 12:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  31. Suppose, why not? Stifle (talk) 12:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  32. Suppose Your work is minor but very important. Keep up the good job. --WriterListener 22:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support with no problem.--JForget 01:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support Strong editor. I see no reason to oppose. Lara❤Love 02:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support Great contributor, will become a great admin. Phgao 16:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support per above comments. --A. B. (talk) 16:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support. Does good work. WjBscribe 20:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support — Great choice for the mop. Maxim(talk) 01:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Neutral. The candidate seems to do good work around here, but his tag on iron maiden and reply to Q4 seem to indicate that he believes article names can be "fixed" against WP:RM consensus, which is a problem since he intends to concentrate on moves. G6 is for non-controversial moves, and in this case the move was opposed by six editors and supported by four (including JHunterJ). Duja's closure of the request was clear; "no move". {{db-move}} tag directly after that is like {{db-a7}} after an article has been kept in an AFD. Prolog 16:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
It appears that you did not read the answer to Q4 fully. I didn't add db-move directly after the closure. I added it directly after another editor redirected it (in an edit war), and simply tagged it based on the current (when I got there) redirection. Despite my participation in the move request, I was primarily interested in fixing the malplaced page, so that "name" page doesn't redirect to "name (disambiguation)" or "name (dab phrase)". So I'm guilty of not reading the closure closely enough. Assume good faith. -- JHunterJ 16:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
This was the clarification I was looking for; changing to support. Prolog 12:19, 27 September 2007 (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.