Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/J Milburn (2nd nomination)

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 Milburn

(51/0/1); Ended 16:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

J Milburn (talk · contribs) - This is my second nomination. The general consensus after my first was to wait a few months, and then nominate myself again, and so that is what I am doing now. Several concerns were raised at the last RfA, that I have tried to address. Primarily, the concerns were that I was accepting the request from someone who many people considering my request thought an odd editor, instead of waiting until I myself was ready, and that I wasn't taking part in enough admin-related activities. Since then, I have taken a much more active part in AfD, as well as continuing new page patrol and nominating hundreds of articles for speedy deletion where appropriate. I feel I have an excellent understanding of Wikipedia policy, and I would make excellent use of admin tools. J Milburn 16:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept! J Milburn 16:41, 3 April 2007 (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 participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with?
A: Primarily, I intend to work to reduce the constant backlog we have at CSD. However, other, smaller areas I intend to work with would be the Main Page error reports, the spam whitelist and administrator intervention against vandalism, all of which I would add to my watchlist straight away. I would also love to start contributing at the other noticeboards, but I wouldn't start doing that instantly. However, I feel that I am happy to help Wikipedia in whatever way it needs to be helped, and so I would be very happy to do whatever was requested of me, and use admin tools to take care of things that no other admin can really be bothered with.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I guess there are four articles that I consider my 'best'. Askam and Ireleth is not too far from featured level, and has been a good article for a while; I worked on that with other editors. I was also responsible for bringing Voltaire (musician) up to good article, but there was already a substantial article there when I started to edit it. Gordon Park and especially Celestiial (which I created from scratch) have been much more my own work. Perhaps another article that deserves a mention is dire animal, which I wrote as a stress relief. It isn't a particuarly good article, but it is pretty long. I feel happy when I sit back and look at a long, relatively complete article, with lots of references, a good amount pictures, well structured sections and appropriate categories. It gives me a great sense of satisfaction to see a good article that I feel responsible for, but I choose articles I start to work on carefully, because I feel a lot of commitment to articles once I start working with them.
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: Yes. This was another matter that caused problems at my last nomination; I had never really been in any disputes. I find that reference to the policies and guidelines and lots of discussion is the answer. I don't think any matter is too small to discuss, and so avoid getting into edit wars by requesting discussion as soon as it looks like a war may be brewing. I take the idea that Wikipedia has no time limit to heart, and I am a lover of procedure and debate. I wouldn't say that I get stressed from editing, and I have certainly recieved plenty of abuse while I have been here (see this for instance- that editor managed to hit me with every insult that has been used agaisnt me on Wikipedia) as well as threats of blackmail and physical threats from an editor who lived geographically close to me. I do not believe that getting angry will solve anything, and it has occurred to me that all threats and abuse that is given to me is pretty empty, so it doesn't bother me. As for debate, I have been in some rather messy discussions, but I have always made an effort to go back and make amends with users afterwards. For instance, a discussion here spilled over on to both our talk pages, and the article talk page, making for some pretty lengthy discussion. However, at the end of it all, the article was much better off, and I contacted the editor to ensure that there were no hard feelings here, and he assured me that there wasn't. Requests for informal help in discussions, such as on the IRC channel, have also proved useful, as often small, informal help in matters can be much more beneficial than larger, more formal requests for help.
General comments
  • See J Milburn's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
  • I feel ready to act as an administrator, and I think that Wikipedia will benefit by giving me the mop. J Milburn 16:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  • See first RFA here.

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. Support - Seems like a good editor who would not abuse the sysop tools, and be helpful to new users looking for a helping hand on the wiki. Bmg916SpeakSign 16:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support I Support Sethdoe92 16:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. I'd like to see a willingness to tackle some more backlogs, but other than that, looks good. John Reaves (talk) 17:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support. He will not abuse or misuse the tools.. -Mschel 17:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support - you've improved on the areas that made me opt for neutral last time round, good work so far and good luck from here on out... The Rambling Man 18:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support. Michael 19:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support - looks okay to me. Deb 19:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support - A helpful editor that would not abuse the tools if given them. He knows how to react to heated situations and has gotten involved in some admin areas like AfD. Camaron1 | Chris 20:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support: Although you might want to participate in AIV more often than specified.  ~Steptrip 20:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 20:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support per all other users above. :) Captain panda In vino veritas 21:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support-- Nick t 21:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support has been involved in a lot more admin-related tasks and policy page contributions since the last RfA, so this in addition to regular editorial duties makes for a shift from neutral to support. (aeropagitica) 21:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support Candidate appears to have the relevant experience in the areas outlined in answer 1 and the statement, and certainly shows a need for the admin tools. He can certainly be trusted, good luck! Majorly (o rly?) 22:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support Good user, seems trustworthy. —Anas talk? 23:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support. bibliomaniac15 00:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support Well deserved. Good luck! --Infrangible 01:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support. I made myself clear in the last request that that one should have passed, and barring some earth-shattering new revelation, nothing's changed since then. Grandmasterka 02:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  19. --dario vet (talk) 12:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support Will not abuse the tools (or we will take them away :). feydey 12:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support per all above. Walton Vivat Regina! 16:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support - Trustworthy, willing to see or decipher the constructive aspects of criticism by others and use it to better himself. Good policy experience. -- Jreferee 17:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support looks good to me.-- danntm T C 20:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support - seems trustworthy, nothing broken. Good candidate. Moreschi Request a recording? 10:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support. What I have seen from this user (e.g at Speedy deletion) indicates a good knowledge of policies and a level head. Fram 14:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  26. Terence 15:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  27. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this candidate! - 18:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support looks like a well-rounded contributor who will be an asset to the project.--Anthony.bradbury 22:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support knows what he is on about, so would be a great asset as admin. Asics talk Editor review! 22:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support--The Joke 23:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support Candidate seems to have a very level head, has improved significantly HornandsoccerTalk 03:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support No evidence that admin tools will be abused.--MONGO 04:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support I see no reason not to. Go for it! James086Talk | Email 06:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support → It seems that he'll be a good admin. Snowolf (talk) CON COI - 09:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support Marcin Suwalczan [our talk] 10:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  36. Support -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 12:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support No reason not to trust. Pascal.Tesson 19:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support - seems like a good editor and user to me! Ale_Jrbtalk 21:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  39. Seems trustworthy and willing to help with backlogs. Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 00:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  40. Support He's worked with me in the past and has been 100% helpful, curteous, and spot-on in terms of Wikipedia policy, etc. Just about as good of an admin as there will be. Rockstar915 05:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support I had an encounter with J Milburn at Afd, and his knowledge of policy was matched only by his character and civility during an argument. --Tractorkingsfan 05:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support. Good contributor. utcursch | talk 08:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  43. Support. Good attitude, answers. Obviously worked with suggestions from the previous RfA. Fly the colours. Pigman 18:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  44. Support--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk • contribs) 23:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  45. Support Looked around a bit, even in some of the more obscure namespaces like image talk (oh, heavens!), and didn't find any obvious skeletons in the closet. Appears reasonable and responsive to criticism and requests -- seems to have addressed concerns raised at previous RfA. Seems familiar with deletion processes and unlikely to abuse tools. Clearly dedicated to the project. Oh, and email's enabled, even. Good luck! – Luna Santin (talk) 00:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  46. Support good admin candidate --rogerd 02:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  47. Support good candidate. -LakersTalk 07:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  48. Support has done sterling work on Askam and Ireleth and kept my contributions on the Wikipedia straight and narrow! Kijog 14:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  49. Support. I'm a big fan of anyone who wants to reduce backlogs. --Hemlock Martinis 06:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  50. Support, CSD backlog can always use some help.--Isotope23 17:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  51. Support, reduce backlogs? Here's the tools :)--Wizardman 00:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. I guess I have missed the boat, but the candidate does not have a clear view of WP:CSD, one of the key requirements for being a safe pair of hands. He tries here to have a school speedied, notes the tag no longer exists, so tries using a generic A7 tag, apparently unaware that schools are not and have never been speediable. (Also seeming to me to show a gap in 'general knowledge' regarding that particular situation.) I removed the tag, explaining why in my edit summary, but he insisted that "I am pretty certain it {A7} does apply" and replaced the tag. Not believing my fairly detailed explanation as to why [1], he managed to find two other editors who also didn't know that schools aren't A7 speedies [2], rather than, say, reading the criterion or asking at WT:CSD. Such a gap, and one without any basis in any actual wording on Wikipedia indicates more time required to me. Yes, an isolated mistake, but declining to be corrected on it and reversing an admins decision on a speedy when they explain that the policy is not applicable to their usage is not the point in time at which the ability to nuke the article on sight should be handed out. Splash - tk 11:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I completely understand your opposition. The main problem was that I missed you were an admin- I mistook you for another (very new) editor I had just been dealing with, and so, instead of checking policy, I presumed that I knew better. As I said, I realised that it used to be a criteria, and I had had schools speedy deleted in that way before (as in, in the last few days), and other editors whom I have respect for agreed with me. Obviously, in response to what you said, I have read up on it in detail. That particular policy is understood by me now, and, as for reverting you, that was a matter of me not realising that you were an admin. My apologies. J Milburn 11:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

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.