Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jon513

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] Jon513

Final (41/2/0); Closed as successful by WjBscribe at 15:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Jon513 (talk · contribs) - I have been editing Wikipedia for over two years, and have almost 5000 edits. I have mostly worked on articles related to Jews and Judaism. I occasionally patrol new pages and try to be as welcoming as possible to any good faith edits (even when they will be deleted) and regularly participate in Judaism related AfDs. Jon513 (talk) 14:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


[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: I enjoy patrolling candidates for speedy deletion (I find them hilarious), though of course now I can't delete them. I would block people that need to be blocked and protect pages that need to be protected.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I think my best contribution has been tedious source work. There is just something very satisfying to using a {{cite news}} and seeing a well form citation be made. I have contributed to many Judaism related articles including Judaism's view of Jesus, Nazirite, and Mamzer. I occasionally disambiguate links to egg when I am bored.
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: I have a healthy amount of apathy when dealing with Wikipedia. I know there is no reason getting worked up over an article (even if, in my mind, the alternative is wrong). As long as the other editors are interested in building a better encyclopedia it doesn't really matter so much which editor "wins". When the editor is not interested in making a better encyclopedia, one polite, but clear comment is usually enough to silence them.

Additional questions from Gnangarra 15:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

4. What people need to be blocked, how are they identified?
A: When there is any doubt I'd rather take a long route (test1, test2, talking to them and explain what wikipedia is about) (I often do that with new pages, try to get the new user to understand why the page has to go; a {{db-author}} is much better than a {{db-bio}}), but when there is no doubt (personal attacks, rampant vandalism) I agree with Jimbo that there does not need to a lot of fuss with a block.
5. How do you identify pages that need protection?
A: When page reverting is taking the place of talking (probably a full protection). Or when there is so much vandalism that it is not being revert promptly (probably a semi-protection). Frankly I don't see myself protecting too many pages, maybe if I am watching The Colbert Report I can preempt him when he encourages vandalism.

Additional question from Dlohcierekim

6. Hello Jon, and thanks for submitting your RfA. Say you're cleaning out the backlog at Category:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion. What would you do with this, assuming for the sake of the question that it's a real article instead of a mock article on a user subpage. Dlohcierekim 22:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
A: The article does not strictly meet the requirement of A7 (No indication of importance/significance); the article says he is a "notable" coach and that "His proverbs, sayings and philosophy have spread to his runners and beyond." Nevertheless, it takes a great deal of imagination to imagine a high school coach who has had multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable sources for his pity remarks, and much easier to imagine a couple of kids having a laugh. I would first try to find some sources with a quick google source, and if I find any, I'd add them and remove the speedy tag. If I didn't find any sources what I'd do next would depend on who created it. If the article was created by new account with no other edits (or worse, other edits that are vandalism) I'd leave a message on his talk page and give some time to respond, and when he doesn't I'd be liberal in interpreting the rules and delete it, but if the user responded to comments on his talk page, or was made by an established user (even a new user), I'd prod it and delete it in five days. Jon513 (talk) 23:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Additional question from User:Sarsaparilla

7. Are there any Wikipedia policies that you disagree with? If so, what is an example and how do you think it might be improved? Sarsaparilla (talk) 03:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
A:I think that the basic principles (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability) of wikipedia are very sound. I would like to see more consistency with AfDs, but I don't see a way to accomplish it. In the current system, you can have a group of people that are all borderline notable for the same reason and half get deleted and half don't. Besides the idiocy of that, it turns off new members and gives credulous to those who accuse Wikipedia of censorship. I don't know if there is a solution to that, but I would love to see it fixed. The deletionist solution is just to delete them all and the includsion solution is to keep them all but neither is really a workable policy. Making more rules for every minute subject would probably do more harm than good. And large centralized discussions have a tendency to break down, as do large group AfDs. Deletion sorting was a step in the right direction, but it didn't solve the problem. Perhaps a system where relevant old AfD are more easily accessed, but that is technically difficult to do. Jon513 (talk) 12:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Additional question from User:Unschool

8.Your contributions are near a two-year nadir. Seems slightly unusual to be requesting the mop at this time. Any explanation? Unschool (talk) 08:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
A: It is true that a year ago I was editing much more. Frankly I was on Wikipedia too much and decided to go online less. Still I am on wikipedia about five times a week, just for less time. I don't see it as unusual to request adminship now. I have been with the community long enough to show that I can be trusted. Ironically, I think that a person that is on Wikipedia an excessive amount of time is less likely to be a good member of the community. It seems to me that the worse fighting (personal attacks, wikistalking, constant reverting) is all a bit silly; people have to calm down and take a step back - writing an encyclopedia is not life or death and an opposing point of view almost always has some legitimacy. Jon513 (talk) 12:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Additional Questions from Nat

9. What is the difference between banning and indefinite blocking?
A: Blocking is a software function and banning is a community action. It's kinda like the difference between being arrested (a legal reality) and being put in jail (a physical condition). Blocks can enforce a ban, but they are different. Jon513 (talk) 15:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
10. If you ran into a extreme POV pusher, and he/she has not committed any vandalism, what steps would you take to deal with this individual?
A: It can take some time for an individual to understand what NPOV means on Wikipedia, and having a strong point of view does not necessarily mean that they are incapable of contributing to a NPOV article. Usually the amount of time a person needs to acclimate to Wikipeida is far less than the community's patience. But when the person refuses over and over again to understand what NPOV means, and the community grows tired of listening to him/her it is exceeding unlikely that he/she will ever be a valued contributor, and will continue trolling until stopped. At that point it is important to keep cool, and don't feed. If his/her changes are also slow reverted he/she is unlikely to stick around. Jon513 (talk) 15:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
11. How do you understand WP:NFC as it applies to promotional images and other non-free portraits of living people used for the purpose of showing what the subject looks like?
A: Non-free content is important when the article is commenting on the content itself, not when it just makes the article prettier. A picture of a person rarely "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding"(WP:NFC policy #8). Nevertheless, there is no reason to be rude about it. Adding pictures is one of the most frustrating things for new users, and care has to be taken not to make it even harder. Jon513 (talk) 14:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
12. Would you be willing to add yourself to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall if promoted? Why or why not?
A: This is the first time that I have ever see this "open to recall" idea, and I am having trouble understanding it. If the motivation behind the process is that administrators have too much power and are abusing it, then doesn't making it elective increase the problem?
After reading one process, I am hesitant because of the amount of bureaucracy that it creates. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - not a virtual government - why would I voluntarily consent to wasting my time doing something so disconnected from writing an the encyclopedia? In general, I like to avoid unnecessary drama and wikilawyering, which seems to be what "open to recall" is all about.
But as I said above, I just heard of this process, if you can tell me a reason why it is valuable I will consider adding myself. Jon513 (talk) 14:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
13. What is your interpretation of WP:IAR and under what circumstances should one follow that policy?
A:My general rule is that Ignore All Rules should only be used when it is clear that everyone involved will say "thank God, that had to be done" and no chance of pissing someone off. If there is a chance that the action can be viewed as "censorship" or a misuse of power, the gains will be offset by the loss. Jon513 (talk) 14:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Jon513 before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Support
  1. Oppose Has a sense of humour and will get deletion work done.--Phoenix-wiki talk · contribs 15:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    Er Phoenix-wiki are you sure you meant to write Oppose or are you making a point? Harland1 (t/c) 20:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    Phoenix-wiki's edit summary was "joke, btw". Jon513 (talk) 21:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    Would people stop making these fake opposes? A bit more professionalism, please! Nishkid64 (talk) 21:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    It was a joke. He deserve adminship though.--Phoenix-wiki talk · contribs 22:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    RFA is serious business! Lankiveil (talk) 01:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
    Well, I agree with Nishkid64 and Lankiveil - RfA is a serious business! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    You Fail per above. 74.62.155.45 (talk) 21:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    indented — ips can't comment--Phoenix-wiki talk · contribs 22:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support, liked his answers to the questions, particularly number three. Lankiveil (talk) 01:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC).
  3. Support. Will be a fine admin, good luck. Happy Holidays!! Malinaccier (talk) 01:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Not enough pre-transclusion votes. <<joke>>. Not likely to hastily delete or wheel war. Seems sensible and level headed. Besides, one needs a sense of humor to get the work done and stay on an even keel. Dlohcierekim 01:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose - I like his sense of humor. His contribs show he can handle things. I think he'll make a great admin. The Transhumanist 02:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
    What is up with the "oppose" comments in the support section? NHRHS2010 Happy Holidays 03:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
    Humour, they say. Master of Puppets Care to share? 06:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support no concerns here. NHRHS2010 Happy Holidays 03:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 05:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support Like your answers to the questions. Master of Puppets Care to share? 06:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support Just to disagree with Kurt Weber; self-nom shows enterprise.--Habashia (talk) 13:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  10. Oppose - I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of - damnit, what I meant to say is that I trust the candidate with the tools EJF (talk) 13:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  11. This nominee seems reasonable in his thinking and answers. Actually a self-nom truly is prima facie evidence of being bold and I support that! -JodyB talk 14:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support in consideration of the nom's response to my original opposition/question, see below. Good luck! -- Iterator12n Talk 15:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  13. Suppose I very much like your answers to the questions, especialy seeing the questions regarding IAR and CSD. When looking at your contributions, they seems to be in line with the answers you give. Good warning of users on CSD usage, (Since I can't see deleted contributions, I can't check if you did any where you didn't warn the user, but I see no reason to assume you wouldn't.)Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  14. Suppose His answers to the questions are excellent. Just because he nominated himself does not make him powerhungry. I see it as he wants to get stuff done and doesn't want to wait for someone to nominate him. Gluck! Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 16:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support You know what your talking about, seem to be a sound editor, haven't been in too much trouble. Why not? Icestorm815 (talk) 16:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support Answers to questions demonstrate a clear and concise understanding and a willingness to communicate. Definitely a good candidate. PeteShanosky 17:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support. Review of edits in talk pages reveals a capacity for great patience and clear thinking. Also felt his answer to my question was well-considered. Unschool (talk) 19:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support. I view self-noms as evidence of an independence necessary in application of admin skills. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 03:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support Qualified. The mop isn't that big of a deal. --Sharkface217 07:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support Seems to have their head on straight; should be a good admin. Jmlk17 08:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  21. Support, I view this self-nom as prima facie evidence that this is a solid candidate. --Coredesat 12:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support as per answer to Dhlorcheim's question. Shows he has the temperament to be an admin. --Writer Listener 23:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support - Good experience and answers to questions. I appreciate an editor who's able to not get all worked up when something on the wiki doesn't go his way. Nothing to worry about here. Tijuana Brass (talk) 03:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support, but please take the new-message banner joke off your user page. :-) SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 05:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support, but please use informative edit summaries, especially in mainspace edits and also appreciated elsewhere. However, this edit, among others, demonstrates considerable wisdom in my opinion. --Coppertwig (talk) 20:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support - Seems like a trustworthy user who knows what he is doing. :-) ScarianCall me Pat 00:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support - Everyone can always use some serious humor. Good choice for an admin. S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s (Merry Christmas!) 00:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support. Sense of humour=good, lack of GA=less good, at least there's some 'pedia building going on. No deal-breakers anyway. Overall should be a net positive. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support - if nothing else, for your answers alone. Jauerback (talk) 19:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support Joke edits confusing but that is no fault of yours. Appears to be a good choice. -Djsasso (talk) 22:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support I find no reason to oppose. Self-nomination is OK! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support as looks like a good editor, meets all standards, with good answers to questions above. Bearian (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support Has met the stringent test of User:Pedro/RFA Standards and I also like the answers to the questions. A net gain here. Best Wishes. Pedro :  Chat  20:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  35. Yes, of course. east.718 at 23:44, December 28, 2007
  36. Support To help negate Kurt. Prodego talk 00:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support I don't see any concerns here. BLACKKITE 00:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support seems like he'll get the job done - I don't have any problem with self-noms. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 06:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  39. Support John254 18:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  40. Plenty of experience: will made a good administrator. Acalamari 02:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support experienced user, good responses and no concerns. Good luck. Carlosguitar (ready and willing) 13:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose
  1. Oppose this isnt a joke response and neither is using the tools, from your short answers to questions I'd have thought that users who could joke like that with you would have taken the opportunity to offer further productive support. From your answers I'm unconvinced that you understand what your asking for. You want the tools to assist with page protection then say Frankly I don't see myself protecting too many pages. Your contribution recently(last 6 months) are light 100-150(244 peak) edits per month compared to 12 months ago where your contributions were 400-600(690 peak) per month. The most substantial participation in AfD were over twelve months ago. edit summary usage is erratic at best, most telling is where you've nominated for speedy deletion they are all but non-existent[1] or meaningless[2] in your answer to q.4 you say I often try get new users to understand why their page has been but i was unable to find any such instance beyond the occasional boiler plate notices. Gnangarra 02:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
    I redirected a new article and left a non-boiler plate message and even received a thanks. Another redirect, and personal message, and message back explaining why I am wrong. Also, Removed an image, explain to the unloader why I removed it and we reached an understanding. Changed a one-side addition to NPOV (I know I forgot an edit summary - I add one in the next edit) explained to the writer, and he agrees. Saved an article from being speedied, talked to the creator and to the person who wanted it speedied. now it even looks like a decent article. I slowed down a speedy deletion of Pierbridge, explained to another user not to bite, and was well received. If you say that I have done less speedy deletion than I remember you are certainly right; I can't review deleted edits and you can. But I was not lieing when I said that I try to make new users understand changes. Jon513 (talk) 15:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 03:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
    The next time someone is thinking of self-nomming, please privately email me and I will nominate you. Then all Kurt can say is "I view noms by Sarsaparilla as reason to suspect that this nominee is secretly trying to hide his raw, fiendish lust for the toe-curling, addictive thrill of ruthlessly wielding cold, hard unimaginably unstoppable power which he wants to forcibly unleash on the innocent, helpless Wikipedia community, firing up Twinkle with Ride of the Valkyries playing full blast out of all five Dolby surround sound speakers, rattling the window panes and ululating like Crazy Horse as he leads the charge to block user after user, reverting their edits and decapitating their articles with merciless brutality – but then again it could just be coincidence that Sarsaparilla nominated him." Such an ambivalent response will surely be disregarded by the bureaucrats. Sarsaparilla (talk) 16:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
    Wow, that was very interesting.... Icestorm815 (talk) 16:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
    Not that there's anything wrong with playing Ride of the Valkyries while using Twinkle. I usually crank up some Rammstein while fighting vandalism. Seriously, there is nothing like making reports to AIV while listening to Ich Will. --Sharkface217 07:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
    Comment I like Sarsaparilla's suggestion. Also, I must try Rammstein. Getting to fossilized in my middle age. Dlohcierekim 16:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
    I strongly suspect that the majority of rfa nom's are really self-nom's with some behind the scenes email maneuvering to get a nom. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
    I hope not. And I also doubt it. As my RFA was criticised for the number of nominators it's worth noting that actually the only e-mail conversations I had where with and editor who didn't nominate in the end (although kindly supported)! And of my two nominations of others it's all been on wiki. Which is where it should be... Pedro :  Chat  20:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    What's interesting is that Kurt's opinion is so unpopular that now, whenever he makes the comment, so many people support in reaction to Kurt that a Kmweber oppose actually makes self-noms more likely to succeed. Ironically (or hilariously), Kurt has made it easier to self-nom than ever before. --JayHenry (talk) 03:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    Actually, I supported Jon513, in reaction to Kurt's oppose! How can self-nomination be prima facie evidence of power hunger? Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    Oppose While the nom is involved in the sourcing of encyclopedic material (an excellent aspect!) in the longer term his sources don't seem to hold up. Correct me with a sufficient number of counter-cases if necessary. Thanks. -- Iterator12n Talk 04:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
    sources for sourcing: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. --Jon513 (talk) 13:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 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.