Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Master Jay

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] Master Jay

Final (58/17/4) ended 04:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Master Jay (talk · contribs) – Master Jay has been on Wikipedia for almost 6 months and has already amassed more than 3600 edits! Jay makes many useful contributions to WP:RFA and WP:AFD. And, while he has very few main-talk-space edits, he has more than 1200 user-talk-space edits. Master Jay spends a lot of time warning users who vandalize Wikipedia. However, when Jay sees a persistent vandal, he must go list him/her at WP:AIV. Jay once said to me, "As you debate on AfD's, urgent matters are ignored on WP:AIV; at least half a dozen anon vandals were listed as you were contributing earlier." If Jay became an admin, he would help rectify that problem. The rollback feature would allow him to more quickly revert vandalism, and blocking power would allow Jay to patrol WP:AIV. I agree with Jay - why spend so much time arguing when there is serious vandalism that must be stopped? --M@thwiz2020 21:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. --Jay(Reply) 04:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. I beat nominator Support, he's great but please have more main space talk contributions. --Terence Ong 04:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
    Grr... I was waiting for Master Jay to accept before voting and he accepted while I was asleep! Well, the nominator can't always vote first. --M@thwiz2020 15:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support; while I'm not fond of the extremely low articletalkspace edits, and putting an article through FA can be enlightening, the user seems very polite and knowledgable. No specific problems to point to beyond those two small matters. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support; I like this user's responses to the questions. And about the low talk space edits — AfD is essentially one giant talk page. I think Master Jay will make a fine admin. Feezo (Talk) 05:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
    Considering AfD a substitute for talk pages is not a healthy Wikipedia attitude. There's much more to talk about than deletion. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
    I look for talk page edits to see how a user interacts with others, as a way of assessing his or her approach to the community at large. I think discussions on AfD can demonstrate this very well. Feezo (Talk) 18:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support. I wholeheartedly agree with this user. Instead of debating between Inclusionism and Deletionism, we should concentrate more on Vandalism, an -ism that is often neglected. --Exir KamalabadiJoin Esperanza! 10:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support No major problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 13:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support as belated, but still super, nominator support! --M@thwiz2020 15:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support Would make good use of the tools. General contributions are good and his extensive use of warnings when reverting vandalism only serves to reinforce my belief that his approach to blocking (and other admin actions) will be level-headed. TigerShark 15:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  8. opposesupportwell of course im going to support, it is Jay after all :pBenon 16:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support, good candidate. -- King of Hearts talk 17:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support looks good. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 17:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support, we need more like him. --Tone 18:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support. I recognize you from AfD and RC Patrol; you're a great asset to these projects. I like your answer to question 2. Royboycrashfan 17:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support. Looks good from here.--Adam (talk) 04:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support -- Tawker 05:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support And my vote fo support is one of the hardest to get by my standards. I believe in forgive and forget. Moe ε 06:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  16. Mega support Master Jay convinced me to change my choice on IRC. :P Computerjoe's talk 07:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support A good user that would benefit from the mop and bucket. - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 07:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support. Excellent user. DarthVader 08:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support: great asset, and nominates good users for the janitorial position, it'd be fair to return the favour Sceptre (Talk) 10:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support I gave Jay a minor interrogation on IRC last night (including the questions below, he was writing the answers when the servers went down so I'm guessing they will appear when he gets back online). That convinced me to support. I do note the concerns raised below by Rx StrangeLove and totally agree that a proper edit summary should have been used in most of those cases. On balance I think Wikipedia will be better off with Jay as admin rather than not; but Jay please be careful in use of rollback (admin one or otherwise). Petros471 17:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support Naconkantari e|t||c|m 21:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support. I completely agree with the nominator that vandal-fighters have a special reason to become admins: that while we wait for an administrator to block a persistent vandal reported at WP:AIV a vandal might deface another half-dozen or dozen pages. Bucketsofg 21:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support My interaction with this user have only been good.--Shanel 00:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support - I have interacted with this user on user talk pages and on IRC, and have had plesent experiences --lightdarkness (talk) 00:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support Joe I 02:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support The user may revert too quickly but it happens to the best of us. Jedi6-(need help?) 04:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support. His ability to stop vandalism deserves the extra muscle. The user is unlikely to abuse the mop, as well. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 05:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support --Rob from NY 12:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support seems good.  Grue  18:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support. — FireFox • T [18:41, 11 April 2006]
  31. Support after speaking to Master Jay and looking through Master Jay’s contributions have come to the conclusion that Master Jay would make a good admin. --Adam1213 Talk + 00:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support good candidate --rogerd 04:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 17:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support - good candidate. --Skeezix1000 21:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support TonySt 23:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  36. --Jaranda wat's sup 22:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support Quick learner, experienced. _-M o P-_ 23:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  38. Cleared for Adminship Jay has been very helpful and supportive of me during hard times, such as today. Will not only be beneficial to vandal fighting but also to the community as a whole. --Pilot|guy 03:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support - Seems happy to help, I can encourage this behaviour. --Dangherous 09:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support - Great user, and friendly too. Sango123 (e) 20:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support With a comment to try to be nicer and be more willing to assume that newbies don't know something and be more willing to tell them why you are reverting what they have done when you do. JoshuaZ 03:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support--Jusjih 10:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  43. Strong support. Great vandalfighter, and as I've mentioned on other RfAs, that IS what adminship is about. Everyone has an edit button; only admins have the block button, admin rollback, etc. --Rory096(block) 16:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  44. Strong support. Checked his contibs, etc. and he seems to be OK. Davidpk212 18:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support - Errs on the side of WP:AGF. I like that. --Dragon's Blood 18:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  46. Support because he's a good candidate. --StabiloBoss 19:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  47. Weak support. I've thought about it a bit, and after looking through the diffs provided by both parties, I believe that Wikipedia will most likely benefit from having Master Jay as an admin. The only reasons I'm giving weak support is that Master Jay's low number of Talk space edits and reversions of what appear to be newbie tests concerns me. Please be careful with the rollback button. Other than that, Jay seems all right. Robert 02:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  48. Support - there is nothing here to suggest he will be anything but a fine admin in the future. NoSeptember talk 13:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  49. Support uses common sense and good judgement. He should be a great asset to WP. --Scott Grayban 20:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  50. Support. Good distribution of edits, and I don't find the "oppose" arguments very convincing. Be bold in editing articles. — Apr. 15, '06 [20:42] <freakofnurxture|talk>
  51. Support. Objections aren't very strong. Everyone makes a mistake once or twice. Plus, he is a great vandal fighter. Give him to mop and let him clean up the messes himself isntead of posting on WP:AIV. Pepsidrinka 21:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  52. Support. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 23:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  53. Weak Support. I have been going back and forth for a few days, but I'm hoping he has learned from previous mistakes. I also feel that he is a little over-eager for the mop, but he'll do a good job. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 00:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  54. Very Strong Support I very strongly support all my fellow canidates. General Eisenhower 00:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  55. Support - Excellent vandal fighter. (ESkog)(Talk) 01:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  56. Support Betacommand 02:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  57. Support. Solid editor; other than some concerns about rollback (which Master Jay has promised to be more careful with in the future), there's absolutely no reason to believe he will abuse the tools. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 03:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  58. OpposeWeak Support after reading these comments, I'm changing to neutral. Adminship is no big deal, and if the candidate proves to be unsuitable, adminship can be taken away just as easily. It looks like abuse of power is unlikely though. joshbuddytalk 22:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
    This is a close race. I will cast my vote on the support side, but again, adminship is not a big deal. Perhaps this used will not contribute much in an article sense, but if effective vandal fighting, in a non-biting way is accomplished, perhaps this is enough. It seems to have been enough for some recent successful rfa's. But I would like to see some more article contributions. And I would like to see some more involvement with content disputes. joshbuddytalk 04:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose I have some slight civility concerns about candidate, given my own harsh exchange with him at Naconkantari's RfA and a similar exchange at TigerShark's RfA editor had with Jayjg more recently. These mild worries wouldn't normally motivate an oppose, but combined with low talk page edits, I believe more time editing would be beneficial here. I look forward to supporting in the future. Xoloz 16:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. I don't see many edits in article talk, nor solid comments in Wikipedia talk pages. Whilst there is also a lot of RFA and XFD contributions, I can't see much too solid in the Wikipedia spoace outside those forums. And reading this makes me wonder if the user wants adminship too much. That adminship is no big deal should perhaps cut both ways. The user is an excellent vandal fighter, I have no doubt about that, and it's with great displeasure I find myself voting in this way at this time. Hiding talk 16:51, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose, following Hiding's reasons. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose, Per above. Masssiveego 18:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose due to the civility concerns mentioned above combined with a weak answer to question three and low participation on talk pages (test messages on user talks aren't the same as collaborating or resolving disputes in my opinion). — Laura Scudder ☎ 19:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
    I think some heated words were said, but I wouldn't say they were incivil, in fact Jay apologised afterwards, and lets not forget no one is perfect. Also things like this show his true temperment [1]Benon 20:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose, as per all above. And i require at least 6 months of membership. Vulcanstar6 01:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose And fairly strongly, He reverts good faith, non-vandal edits with a tool that only leaves a admin revert-type summary. And then doesn't say anything to the newbie editors about why they got reverted. We shouldn't be rolling good faith edits back like this, and it seems a little arbitrary and/or heavy handed. If we're going to be rolling back edits for content reasons at least he should be making an attempt to explain the reverts. #:Examples:[2][3] [4][5] Rx StrangeLove 03:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
    Looking at those: 1)removing a new users n00b test of inserting redlinks and 3)was a clear case of link spam. Also consider the amount of good edits Jay has made, no one here is perfectBenon 20:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
    Well, the first example was still a good faith edit, however you want to describe it. And I'm not sure the second was such a clear case, if you look here you'll see another editor thought the same thing at first but after looking at the edit decided it wasn't so clear and struck out their warning about link spam. In none of these cases did Master Jay say anything to the new comer. Good faith edits shouldn't rolled back without comment. No one is perfect, and he does good work. But the attitude toward new editors needs work. Rx StrangeLove 01:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
    And for those of you reading StrangeLove's comments, may I first point out edits such as this, this, and this? Why is it that our society weights weaknesses so much more than strengths? There are users who, for example, greet new users and welcome them to this encyclopedia and make this a positive environment and they get no credit. But if that user then was to yell at a few new users, he would literally get tarred-and-feathered. Now, I'm not saying that Master Jay has gone through and greeted hundreds of users - I'm just giving an analogy. He helps out our encyclopedia, gets no credit, and now there are five specific edits (two of which, as Benon showed, are bad examples) and an RfA is almost impossible. --M@thwiz2020 00:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
    I'd also like to point stuff like this out [6]. I'm a bit worried people are expecting perfection here. Benon 01:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
    Well, no one is getting tarred and feathered here. I included 4 examples, I could have listed many more. All 4 were misuses of rollback, regardless of how some editors might. The fact is there's a pattern of misusing what amounts to a admin tool. I don't feel that now is the time to give him more. No where did I say he was a bad user, just the opposite in fact. No one is looking for perfection, but I believe he needs more time. Both in the attitude toward new users and what a rollback tool is meant for. I have no doubt that in a couple months he'll be fine. Remember that admin-ship isn't a reward. Rx StrangeLove 03:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose, use of a automated rollback tool for content issues is an awfully bad way to go about things, and giving the user additional powers until they realise this may not be the best idea. Proto||type 14:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose per Rx StrangeLove. CasualFighter 21:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
    May I point you to my comment below Rx StrangeLove's vote? Benon 22:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose. After reading these comments, I do not feel comfortable supporting Master Jay's nomination. I am glad, however, that you are learning from your mistakes. Stay clean, and I'll support you in a few months. (^'-')^ Covington 23:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose Merecat 06:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
    No offense, and in all respects, but why? Because it looks nice? --Rob from NY 12:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
    Rob, please assume good faith. --M@thwiz2020 00:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose as per Covington, reluctantly. Pete.Hurd 05:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose. I am very grateful to Master Jay for his work against vandalism and for this I would like to strongly support. The thing that stops me (at the moment) is, I feel, a quantity over quality issue. I feel that high totals are not enough. I would rather see lower totals but with a sense of more care being given to them, especially dealing with new editors, when there may well be a need to provide support, information and encouragement. This of course takes time and reduces the edit count which seems to be so much of a feature of these RfA, so that particular culture has its part to play in encouraging bad habits. The nomination starts off by proclaiming 3,600 edits in six months, as if that's enough to settle the question. Another point that makes me oppose at the moment is that I feel calmness and politeness in facing opposition is essential. I am sure that Master Jay is taking note of these things and working on them. I will be happy in a couple of months to support. Tyrenius 04:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose - I'd be happy to support a bit later. --HappyCamper 16:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose - since this is going to be a close one, I'm going to have to change my vote to 'oppose' for the same reasons as I mentioned in my neutral vote, and for the concerns that others had above. He's a bit too keen to revert other people's work. - Richardcavell 00:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose - It doesn't seem as though he can distinguish between vandalism and a content-dispute (per StrangeLove's evidence and lack of rebutting evidence other than personal note of repentence) (something ironically that I have also had trouble with recently). More non vandalism related talk edits would demonstrate for one that he is willing to discuss issues related to pages, and two that he has not just been looking at the edits to the page without reviewing what is happening behind the scenes. This combines with the users obvious want to obtain the power to close XfD's doesn't quite come to me as a person who knows how to distinguish consensus on topics well enough to be the final decision maker. Ansell 01:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose as per Steven and Covington above. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 02:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

#Oppose at this point; I'd like to see examples of significant discussions (and the AfD mentioned in question 3 isn't one). The rollback button issue is a concern as well. —Spangineer[es] (háblame) 03:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC) (moved to Neutral)

Neutral

Neutral - This is worrying me, but I don't feel I can vote 'support'. I'm worried that Master Jay will become capricious or heavy-handed if he's given admin status. Some of his reverts I think he could have just 'let go'. There's nothing stopping him from doing the work that he does currently. - Richardcavell 05:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC) Changed to oppose
Neutral - The user lacks many talk page edits, which are a key part of dispute resolution. Also, the user has been active for 6 months amounting only 3600 edits; which is about 600 per month. Computerjoe's talk 12:49, 9 April 2006 (UTC) Changed to support
Interiot's counter shows that, except for Jay's first month on Wikipedia (which was only 6 days because he started October 25) and this month (which has only been 9 days so far), he averages 708.6 edits per month. His total edits and time, though, seem to meet most standards. --M@thwiz2020 15:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
600 edits per month isn't enough for you? It's on the high side for me. Any more than that makes me suspect edit count inflation. There are reasons to oppose Master Jay, but editcountitis isn't one of them. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I apoligse for my editcountitis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Computerjoe (talk • contribs)
Neutral pending answers to questions from JoshuaZ below.--Jusjih 13:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC) Changed to support
  1. Neutral, curiously few talk page edits. JIP | Talk 15:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
    Neutral, awaiting answers to additional questions. Petros471 18:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC) Changed to support
  2. Neutral. - Mailer Diablo 11:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral. I'm trying out a new (rather tedious) system I've come up with for evaluating RfA's. I may use this from now on, I may never use it again. So, after going through all this, I ended up with Neutral, per my evaluation of Master Jay by my personal criteria. Best regards, Ëvilphoenix Burn! 05:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Neutral after reviewing some discussions this user has had. Seems to be polite to vandals and others in general. Still no major debates though (anywhere, article talk pages or user talk pages) that I can see, where the user had significant vested interest but remained cool and collected. Also, I'm still a little concerned about the rollback. —Spangineer[es] (háblame) 04:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • See Master Jay's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool and the edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool.
  • I attribute my scarce Talk page contributions (less than 1:) to the fact that I prefer to use User talk as a means of communicating with users. (Who doesn't enjoy seeing the orange bar after a long day:) Also, quite a bit of discussion is embedded in the project namespace pages. --Jay(Reply) 04:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
    Read more about Master Jay's talk page policy here, under point number 2. --M@thwiz2020 15:28, 9 April 2006 (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 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 anticipate helping out with the various XfD pages, assisting in closing out the thousands of pages listed each week, per clear consensus. In addition, WP:AIV has on many occasions been area where I wanted to do more than just add to the list. I anticipate dealing with the backlog there, when necessary.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: We all have our places in the project. Some editors have a wealth of knowledge and write featured articles. Others work extensively in process, contributing to policies and votes. Then there are editors like myself, who like to keep articles in check, and work at counter-vandalism. Collectively, we all make the project work. I admit that I haven't written a featured article, or devised policy. However, at the end of the day, it is still an encyclopedia, and I am fairly proud of my work at Butch Carter. I am pleased with that particular contribution because it involved extensive researching of references, familiarizing myself with appropriate citation, and improving an article to a decent quality.
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: To answer the first part, yes I have indeed been in disputes with other users in the past; Wikipedia is made up of many people from many places and many ideas - naturally, any human project will have dispute or disagreement; I am not immune to that. Outside of RfA/B, a good example of a dispute that I have had would have to be Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First Family of the United States. Although I didn't agree with the end result, I took from that experience that the most important in resolving conflict is to talk about it. No matter how long the discussion gets, it is imperative that both sides state their cases, debate, and eventually, a resolution will be found. I will continue to stand by this principle of discussion as a means of solving a dispute in the future.

Questions from JoshuaZ

1 While you have a large number user talk edits, you have a neglible number of article talk edits (less than 20 as of 24 hours ago). Why?
(Just a note: the downed servers kept me off-wiki last night. But I'm here now:) - I'm very sorry about the long delay)
No doubt about it, my article talk edits stink. Coming into this discussion, I knew that it would be an area of concern. One course of action would have been to wait a month and beef up my article talk edits. However, such contributions would have to fall under edit count inflation rather than article improvement. Plus, there would be an issue of "why are all his talk edits in one month." The other course of action would be to admit to this fault, and explain why. That is what I am going to do today.
I have not had any major involvement in an article improvement effort/Wikiproject to constitute hundreds of talk edits. Also, reiterating from other comments, quite a bit of discussion on many issues happens under project space edits. I also favour (yes, with a 'u':) user talk - the message gets received faster. Regarding the issue of just vandal warning, any look at my talk page/archives should provide a better glimpse of actual communication.
Feel free to ask additional questions for more clarification. Thanks --Jay(Reply) 22:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
2 Your answer to question 3 is slightly lacking. In the mentioned AfD you had little stake in the matter as far as I can tell. Can you give examples of other times you have been in conflict with other editors and how you responded?
Other examples of conflict would have to be Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Naconkantari 3 and the example Benon provided. With the NK RfA, I had a disagreement with some of the opposers. However, like I mentioned in #3, I talked it out. With the Benon example, I cleaned up what I thought was common user space vandalism. As it turned out, it wasn't, and I was eventually able to resolve the issue with the respective users. The best way to resolve any conflict is through discussion, and more discussion, and even more discussion, if necessary. --Jay(Reply) 22:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
3 What do you think of WP:SCHOOL?
WP:SCHOOL is a significant issue that I feel needs more discussion and time to be effective. To avoid conflict of interests, I feel that matters regarding that issue should be addressed there. --Jay(Reply) 22:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
4 How would you respond to concerns that you have bitten newbies and have used effectively admin-level abilities in content disputes?
I would not go as far to say that I am a newbie-monster. However, I admit that I was wrong in 2 of the 4 examples from Rx StrangeLove, and after realizing this mistake, I am more than willing to restore what was removed, in addition to apologize for any hard feelings. I have learned plenty in the last month to avoid such instances in the future. Quite contrary to the concerns from Richardcavell, I am not one to be heavy-handed or capricious. Rather, I hold true to the principle of we all make mistakes - admit what you did wrong, learn from it, and apologize. I am quite embarassed to point out my old talk page, where for a moment, I thought I'd be apologizing every day. --Jay(Reply) 22:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
5 Are there any admin powers that you would like to give to all users? Why or why not?
The current process in allowing sysop privileges, i.e. RfA, is sufficient. Once again, to avoid conflict of interests, I would like to reserve my comments on this issue, i.e. requests for rollback, for the appropriate discussion pages. --Jay(Reply) 22:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
6 If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia what would it be?
The font maybe? Wikipedia is perfectly fine as it is now. --Jay(Reply) 22:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
7 Under what circumstances will you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?
I would not indefinitely block any user for issues such as edit warring, disagreement, etc. I should not have the power as an individual to essentially ban a user for issues that require additional discussion and mediation. In addition, due to the complexity of IP addresses, I also would not indefinitely ban an unregistered user/anon. However, I would exercise an indefinite block whenever it comes to vandal sockpuppets/vandalism only accounts. A good recent example would have to be Coe_McSweet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), who was blocked indefinitely by FireFox (talk · contribs). I to would have exercised, and will excercise, an indefinite block in such a situation. Once again, feel free to ask any further questions for clarification. Thanks. --Jay(Reply) 22:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Petros471

8. My standard question when I can't quite make up my mind: What mistakes (if any) do you feel you have made on Wikipedia? How did you deal with them, and how would you deal with them in future?
Well, most of my mistakes, albeit not all of them:) have pretty much been covered above - acting to quickly with a fresh user, etc. As I said in q. 4, admit to it, correct the mistakes, and apologize. --Jay(Reply) 22:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
9. Do the means justify the ends? i.e. how far are you willing to ignore rules in order to benefit (in your opinion) the encyclopedia as a whole?
For clarification, I won't generally break any rules. If a job needs to get done, there is a way it can be done without breaking the rules, if it is a legit job. --Jay(Reply) 22:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


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 talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.