Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/tjstrf

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

[edit] tjstrf

FINAL (52/7/0); WITHDRAWN 00:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Although I have gathered a lot of support here, I was unfortunate enough to enter RfA at the same time as I became involved in a rather sensitive content dispute. In order to avoid being judged solely on my involvement in a single issue rather than my work here as a whole, I am withdrawing for now. I will run again at a later date, when my contributions can be evaluated in the light of a larger time frame and their final effects judged. Thanks to all that have supported me. --tjstrf talk 00:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

tjstrf (talk · contribs) - It is my pleasure to be nominating tjstrf for adminship.

tjstrf, or Tristan, has been with us since 2005. He has been editing regularly since May 2006, has over 10000 edits spread well throughout various namespaces. The edit counter shows over 4000 mainspace edits, nearly 2000 Wikipedia space edits as well as 900 Wikipedia talk edits, which is an admirable balance. tjstrf is a dedicated editor who is decidedly experienced in article writing, as demonstrated by his quality edits to articles, including adding substantial material ([1]), providing references properly ([2] [3]), and rewriting ([4]). More importantly, I find tjstrf a highly intelligent user who has an in-depth knowledge of policy. tjstrf is heavily involved in XfDs, where his decisions are always supported by reasoned judgments and rational explanations ([5] [6] [7] [8] [9]) He also helps close clear keep discussions([10] [11]). All of this, needless to say, indicates that he has a good sense required to close ambiguous deletion debates. In addition, tjstrf regularly visits the Village pump and policy discussions, where his valuable comments yet again confirm his profound insights into our content policies and guidelines ([12] [13] [14] [15], [16] [17]). tjstrf can be seen everywhere, he participates in Wikiprojects, contributes useful input at RFCN, is helpful in response to questions at the Help Desk, reverts vandalism and has many reports to AIV. He also has a constant usage of enlightening edit summaries, no block and is email enabled.

Ultimately, I believe, without a shadow of a doubt, that tjstrf will do an excellent job as an administrator if he is given the tools, and I hope the community share my views. Peacent 07:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I gladly accept. Thank you very much, PeaceNT. Not sure what more to say here, except that you may wish to read my userpage to learn more about me. --tjstrf talk 10:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I predict I would find myself doing XfD work. I've always thought that a 5 day discussion process regularly taking 8 or 10 days to finalize a decision is quite frustrating, and am sure others feel the same way. If a page needs deleted, then leaving it around for an extra week after gaining consensus for deletion simply due to staff shortages is harmful to Wikipedia. If a page should be kept, then leaving it in agonizing limbo for any longer than it need be is simply unkind to its editors.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My work with the Anime and Manga Wikiproject has been the most fulfilling for me, especially the various articles in Category:Bleach (manga). I was able to, along with help from other users such as User:Dekimasu and User:Ynhockey, bring the main Bleach article up to WP:GA status recently, and another article in the category is currently a Featured List candidate that looks like it will pass. Bleach (manga) happens to be one of the top 50 most viewed pages on Wikipedia, gathering 15,000 views per day last month, so keeping our coverage of it at a decent quality is an important and ongoing task.
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 very rarely been in conflict with another established editor, and when I get into normal disagreements I do my best to engage in civil discussion with them. I am thick skinned, so I don't let things stress me out easily, whether simple vandalism to an article I watch or weeks of continual sockpuppet attacks. As an additional safeguard, I keep a personal policy to avoid editing articles that I have strong personal feelings about.
The only significant dispute I can think of that I have been involved in recently was the Essjay controversy article, which had its content argued day and night for over a month by one user. (Anyone who watches WP:ANI should remember the numerous threads there about it.) I believe I was civil throughout the dispute, but will admit to some edit warring. I'll not delve into any sort of self-justification here, you can read the archives of Talk:Essjay controversy yourself.

Pre-emptive optional question from User:tjstrf

4. Do you have a secure password?
A: Yes.

Question from Night Gyr (talk/Oy)

5. What is it? (so we can be sure)
A: Asterisk asterisk asterisk asterisk asterisk asterisk asterisk asterisk...

Question from Sandstein:

6. Given that WP:U prohibits, among others, "usernames that consist of a lengthy or apparently random sequence of characters" (my emphasis), would you agree to change your username to a more easily identifiable one?
A: I'm unsure. It's sort of a surprise hearing that it's problematic now, as I've never received complaints about my name before this. I have recognized that it may be apparently random by some interpretations, and at one point I informally asked for feedback on my name during the course of a WP:RFC/NAME on another user whose name was being questioned as random, but was told at the time that mine was not problematic as it is short in length.
I wouldn't be unwilling to make the change, as I just checked and there are at least two acceptable alternate names I could use. But since changing usernames can be rather jarring, both for the user who changes their name (me) and for people who are used to referring to them by it, I would prefer not to without a good reason.
As such, I would like wider input before making a decision one way or another. How about I file a request for comment on my name at WP:RFC/NAME in order to gather feedback? If I receive a reasonable number of complaints there (not necessarily enough to disallow it, but enough to show that it's a real concern), then I would be quite willing to change names.
That sounds like a reasonable approach to me. Sandstein 22:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Done, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names#tjstrf. --tjstrf talk 02:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/tjstrf before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

Support

  1. Why not? Don't see any problems, and will make a good admin. --Dark Falls talk 10:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. Eh? You're kidding, right? <Cliché goes here> – Chacor 11:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. Strong Support Just pop the old Cliché in as well, right next to Chacor's. There we go, fits beautifully.... :) Pedro |  Chat  11:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support, a good contributor with a solid record. -- Visviva 11:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
    Support - no issues here - changing to oppose - Alison ☺ 11:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support I've seen Tristan around, mostly in XfDs and the Village pump, and I see no reason not to support this good candidate. Yes, let's give him a mop. —Anas talk? 12:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support Majorly (talk | meet) 13:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support - as per nom..--Cometstyles 14:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support as nom. It's about time Peacent 14:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support-Nothing seems to be wrong with this User.-Arnon Chaffin Review me? 15:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  10. Like Chacor, thought this had already been done. Moreschi Talk 15:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support- Excellent editor. Boricuaeddie Spread the love! 15:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support: Excellent editor who has a palette that is well-balanced. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  13. Oh, I thought... Riana ⁂ 15:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support - Trustworthy and active user.--Danaman5 16:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support seems to be a dedicated and honest editor. There is no reasonable cause for opposing. And as a general note unrelated to this discussion, it like when the nominator goes through the edit count, as opposed to self-nominated editors who just say they make good edits Black Harry 16:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support Genuine cliche moment; excellent editor. Xoloz 16:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  17. Weak Support although I'd prefer if this candidate requested a change of username. The existing one is hard to remember. WaltonAssistance! 17:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  18. Support Seems like a great editor with plenty of experience. However, I do agree agree with Walton's comment on your hard-to-remember username. hmwithtalk 17:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  19. Support - Wikipedia needs more editors like Tjstrf. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 19:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  20. Support. Excellent and trustworthy candidate. RFerreira 19:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  21. You're not an admin already Support? Good user, good edits, good answers. --R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 19:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  22. Support, definitely. This user's edits are strong all over the shop. - Zeibura S. Kathau (Info | Talk) 20:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  23. Support What Chacor and Moreschi said. Acalamari 23:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  24. Support clean up on aisle 7 --Infrangible 00:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  25. Support - thought you were one! You'll make a fine admin. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  26. Support Will mop wisely. KrakatoaKatie 01:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support - I don't see any real concerns. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 01:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  28. Support Although I could care less about anime and manga, I think that you will be a fine admin. I do have to wonder what is up with the edit below mentioned by Nick. —Gaff ταλκ 01:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  29. Support. -- Phoenix2 (holla) 02:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  30. Support. Great editor, and will make a great administrator. --Carioca 04:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  31. I was just thinking of nominating him the other day (seriously) support. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  32. Support Yeah, let's do it. Jmlk17 06:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support Best of luck with the sysop tools. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 18:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support --seen him around, good impression. NikoSilver 22:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  35. Support "What they said" about sums it up. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  36. Thought he was one. --Merovingian (T-C-E) 03:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  37. Support, no doubts here. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 06:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  38. Support, although going to RFCU just because one person said the name was "hard to remember" smacks of trying too hard to keep everyone happy. Remember that as an admin you will never be able to manage that. Neil ╦ 10:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  39. sprt ths cnddt. Cn b vwl pls? >Radiant< 13:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  40. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 16:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  41. Support, Don't see any reason to oppose.--Isotope23 17:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  42. Support I agree with Isotope23 on this one. No reason to oppose. Captain panda 22:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  43. SupportI don't see why not. --Wikihermit(Speak) £ 00:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  44. El_C 04:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  45. Support. Engaging with unpleasant topics on behalf of the project is a task of the most dedicated "janitors". tjstrf has helped with unpopular and even distasteful subjects while maintaining neutrality. We'd be lucky to have him as an admin. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 10:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  46. Support. Good, experienced editor. utcursch | talk 13:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  47. Support. Trustworthy and likely to take on difficult admin tasks. -- Jreferee 17:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  48. Support. Since I thought you were a good admin before this RfA, I see no reason to think you wouldn't be one after it. ;-) -- Black Falcon (Talk) 22:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  49. Support. Well, he helps a lot of people in the help desk. Pretty sure he would make a good admin. Chris 00:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  50. Support I wanted to nominate the user back in May, but he preferred waiting, and PeaceNT beat me in offering the nom again, also it's too late for a co-nom ;-) «Snowolf How can I help?» 11:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  51. Strong Support User is highly intelligent and has the administrative abilities; taught me quite a few things too such as categories. User has been an active Wikipedian for well over two years and as of June 6th, 2007, has never been blocked for anything like edit warring or vandalism. Lord Sesshomaru 19:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  52. Happy to Support : ) - jc37 22:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose Poor understanding about userspace policy. (your position in User:Centrx poor judgment and UI spoofing hardly seem neutral and objective) Tend to hold grudges against users he previously had disagreement with. [18], classifying someone as "obnoxious" obviously doesn't help.--Certified.Gangsta 08:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. Strong Oppose Because he lacks knowledge of what our Fair Use policy is. He thinks This is Applicable with the policy, which it's not, it's a violation. I don't think someone so careless with the checking of the articles for vioations of policy should be granted adminship until they understand the basics. — Moe ε 02:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose, for several reasons: I was unaware of this editor until yesterday. I was a participant in the debate over the new LoliWikipe-tan image on the Lolicon Talk page. Here is the image: [19], which may or may not be present at Lolicon at the moment--lot of reverting going on. His haste to upload the image has been noted below. He was insensitive to objections, reducing some genuine concerns to WP:IDONTLIKEIT: [20]. I felt bulldozed, with new anons showing up every time I turned around, one of them quite rude; eventually some other folks showed up to oppose, and things just escalated. Granted tjstrf isn't yet an admin, and I'm not saying he is 100% to blame, but I have no confidence as to his ability to handle a conflict situation. Later in the day I made an attempt to work out a difference of opinion with him over the caption for the new image (which someone had uploaded onto the Wikipe-tan page), after he reverted my edit. His talk: [21] and my talk: [22]. He was "fine with the current caption, personally"--end of conversation. No willingness to find a compromise. Today the conflicts seem to be escalating, and it is my opinion that he is partially to blame for this. [23]. There are much more effective ways that he could be handling this situation, and it seems personal with him. Tjstrf has an impressive record of participation and obviously has some strong social relationships here, but I don't think he's ready to be an admin. -Jmh123 03:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose - sorry I don't think you understand fair use. —— Eagle101Need help? 00:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose strongly per this edit. Images linking a Wikipedia symbol to children in a sexualised concept are unacceptable. To not only tolerate its presence on a Wikipedia page, but to describe an overtly sexual lolicon image as "an embarassing situation" leads to me question tjstrf's judgment and suggests he would be weak in upholding the best interests of the project were he an admin. WjBscribe 00:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose - the continuing Lolicon issue is not what I expect from a prospective admin. The overtly inclusionist stance in the face of reasoned arguments for the exclusion of the image is really unacceptable. I also find [24] worrying, a lack of judgement and an expectation for someone else to magically solve the problem. Nick 00:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  7. Changed to Oppose - sorry. I'm quite unimpressed with your judgement re. WJBscribe's diff above. - Alison ☺ 00:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

# Neutral Changing to Oppose - Not at all impressed with this edit on Lolicon - replacing a known good free image with a dubious, newly uploaded image, where one editor on Commons has expressed concern over the licence on the uploaders talk page. Might be a free image with the wrong licence, might be a copyvio but I've no idea why you would swap images considering the circumstances. Nick 01:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, I was planning on just letting this sit, but since User:Gaff brought it up above, I'll respond. When I readded the image, I had misinterpreted a talk page comment about it being on commons as meaning that the licensing was fixed. I knew personally from off-wiki that the image was free from the beginning, just incorrectly labeled, and since I had briefly before that made a comment (off-wiki) telling how to properly upload it on commons, incorrectly assumed the fixes I'd suggested had been done. (The licensing for the image has now been properly rectified, by the way.) An oversight on my part. --tjstrf talk 07:58, 4 June 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.