Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jredmond

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Jredmond

final (40/0/0) ending 21:05 July 14, 2005 (UTC)

If you have any of the year or date articles on your watchlist (and you should, those are prime targets for vanity vandals who desperately want their birthdays to be encyclopedic), then Jredmond's username shouldn't be unfamiliar to you. He's extremely dedicated at reverting vandalism, and seems to deal with conflict in a calm manner. He would definitely get some good mileage out of the revert button. DropDeadGorgias (talk) July 7, 2005 21:06 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I am honored to accept this nomination. - jredmond 8 July 2005 17:22 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support. I'm the nominator. Q.E.D., ∎, duh. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) July 7, 2005 21:09 (UTC)
  2. Sure. El_C 7 July 2005 22:19 (UTC)
  3. Merovingian (t) (c) July 8, 2005 08:02 (UTC)
  4. Diligent reversion of vandalism. Seeaxid 8 July 2005 10:02 (UTC)
  5. Support -JCarriker July 8, 2005 21:41 (UTC)
  6. Support. Keen and courteous. A fine combination. —Theo (Talk) 8 July 2005 22:19 (UTC)
  7. Support - does important work, and does it well. -- BD2412 talk July 9, 2005 00:26 (UTC)
  8. Michael Snow 9 July 2005 02:32 (UTC)
  9. Support. Denelson83 9 July 2005 02:36 (UTC)
  10. Support. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 9 July 2005 04:32 (UTC)
  11. Support! Neutralitytalk July 9, 2005 08:10 (UTC)
  12. Support. Poli (talk • contribs)
  13. support. Give the man a rollback button! alteripse 9 July 2005 10:07 (UTC)
  14. Cool. JuntungWu 9 July 2005 10:17 (UTC)
  15. Carbonite | Talk 9 July 2005 13:38 (UTC)
  16. Support Cyberjunkie TALK< /b> 9 July 2005 14:44 (UTC)
  17. Support; this one is obvious. Look at all the incredible anti-vandalism work he's been doing already. Antandrus (talk) 9 July 2005 15:17 (UTC)
  18. Support. The right nominee, for the right reasons. Give the man a mop. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:31, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
  19. Support - Ride 'em up, move it out - ROLLBACK! --FCYTravis 09:07, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
  20. Support Would benefit with the rollback tool. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:17, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
  21. Support Does a good job of keeping Wikipedia clean. • Thorpe • 18:42, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
  22. Support. Record looks good. Madd4Max 18:56, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
  23. Support a clear-and-present admin-in-waiting. -Splash 23:40, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
  24. Support. Savvy in catching POV language and working reasonably with other editors to remove or substantiate, and also seems to make effort to present content in a manner intended to ward off potential POV edit wars. I noticed this on the AIDS article for example, but this style is evident on a broad spectrum of articles. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 00:01, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  25. Support - Tεxτurε 21:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  26. Support. Shem(talk) 21:44, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  27. That's hot. Mike H (Talking is hot) 00:09, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  28. Support. Never heard of him, to my memory, but maitenance should always be rewarded. -- user:zanimum
  29. Support. -- JamesTeterenko 02:42, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  30. Support He notice a vandalism using an A-Team reference which makes him automatically cool. --Krystyn Dominik 04:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  31. My only contact with Jredmond, as I recall, is a news article about Wikipedia in which we were both quoted, but from that impression alone (and the way he spoke about Wikipedia), it's clear we can trust him with "the keys to the custodian's closet", as moink would put it. Jwrosenzweig 08:51, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  32. Support Has all the admin qualities. Sango123 15:13, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  33. Strongest possible support. A true vandal slayer if ever there was one. - Lucky 6.9 00:24, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  34. Support Vandals quake at the sight of a mop, and will be put into good use! Bratschetalk 5 pillars 02:47, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  35. Strong support. A no-brainer: Jredmond has been one of the most impressive vandal fighters around, and his responses to the questions below illustrate that he has a given the sort of thought towards sysop protocols that are my greatest concern in adminship votes. – Seancdaug 04:57, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  36. Support Stirling Newberry 12:23, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  37. Support. Guettarda 13:57, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  38. Support Triddle 17:02, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  39. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 22:13, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  40. Support a bit late, but I'll add just one more vote, as if it was needed! Stewart Adcock 21:59, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

  • Has the user been informed of their nomination? Harro5 July 8, 2005 05:08 (UTC)
    • Yes; DropDeadGorgias asked on my talk page if I'd be interested before he created this nomination. I just got sidetracked by the 'real world' before I could reply here. - jredmond 8 July 2005 17:22 (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 read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
A. I already help with vandalism, but the rollback tool would make it much easier to handle simple and/or persistent vandals (though I prefer to leave a reason in most cases). I will also help with page un/protection and un/deletion and vandal blocking as appropriate.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. The overwhelming bulk of my edits are minor — removing unencyclopedic entries here, copyediting there — but I am proud of my contributions to the baseball article. (Most were done to a temp version, which has since been moved to the main article.)
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. I've been involved in several controversial articles (circumcision, Terri Schiavo) and in a few strange controversies (St. Louis Blues vs. St. Louis Blues (hockey), naming conventions for US cities), and I'd like to think that I handled myself well (though the edit histories stand for all to see). Generally, I can choose an appropriate response by reminding myself that NPOV and substantiated facts are more important here than my own entrenched opinions; if things get very heated, I cope by ranting on my blog or to a friend's open ear or by lifting heavy weights. Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for my frustrations, though, and if I'm directly involved in some controversy then my admin wand gets set aside.