Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Johnleemk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Johnleemk

Final (54/15/5) ended 06:41 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Johnleemk (talk • contribs)

I noticed on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship that we've had a backlog of RFAs over the past few days. Reasons cited seem to be a lack of active bureaucrats, most of whom were away due to the American holiday of Thanksgiving. Looking back at past RFBs, most of them have failed due to rather controversial editors or a lack of experience (i.e. been here for less than six months). Since I don't think I fall in any of those categories, I thought I'd give this a shot.

I first edited with this account in September 2003 (before I edited anonymously). I applied for adminship in June 2004, and despite having only a thousand edits, managed to get Blankfaze's support due to my extensive editing that my low edit count belied. Right now I only have about 5500 edits, but if you peruse the clumsy list of contributions I've made on my userpage, I think you'll find a lot of work done in comparatively few edits. Besides simply writing articles, I'm also heavily involved in citing sources for our articles, as I feel a lack of references is a major hit on our credibility. I also do lots of minor editing here and there.

In the community itself, I can only think of three (at the most) serious arguments I've had — a clash with an editor who wanted to add POV to Coca-Cola (he later left, unfortunately), an argument with Everyking over the famous Ashlee Simpson controversy that I hope ended amicably, as I never wanted to see James/Everyking stop editing — he's an asset to Wikipedia. I also had a little polite tiff with Malbear over the Bumiputra article. During last year's end-year arbcom elections, I ran as a candidate and garnered 69 votes (13% of the total vote). I did get disendorsed by Fred Bauder (an arbitrator) for reverting an edit of his to the disendorsements page, but that was about it — I never bothered to get seriously involved in that mad mudslinging match that marred the election.

As a bureaucrat, I would of course help clear the RFA backlog as well as change usernames (if anyone requires them). As someone in Malaysia (the UTC+8 timezone), I think my timezone (and culture — I don't celebrate Thanksgiving, while most of our Bureaucrats don't celebrate Chinese New Year) will help, since I can handle nominations that end around this time. The recent backlog showed that our existing bureaucrats, as wonderful and hard-working as they are, can't be everywhere at the same time. As someone with quite a bit of spare time on my hands (I'm a student), I think I can help to prevent another backlog from arising. Johnleemk | Talk 06:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. Yes. Good luck. NSLE (讨论+extra) 07:03, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. Support I think we need some more b's hired before Christmas.  Grue  07:09, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. Support, sure, we need more people to do this thankless job. Titoxd(?!?) 07:25, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support. It's raining (i.e., Thanksgiving etc) and the roof is leaking. Time to address the problem. --Ancheta Wis 07:45, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support I'm going to against my usual standard of not voting on editors I have had no interactions with since after viewing his contributions and his answers to the questions he seems like he'd make a great bureaucrat. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 08:51, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support - having looked at his contributions, he seems to be an excellent b-crat candidate yet I haven't met him. Perhaps becoming one will help in this respect. :) --Celestianpower hablamé 11:14, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  7. Merovingian 11:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  8. Supporting in my first beaurocratship vote. Jacqui★ 15:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support one of our most seasoned and trustworthy admins, he's perfect for this job. For Redwolf below: I too feel that Johnleemk may have been interacting a little less with the community recently, i. e. since you joined the project (or simply been interacting in areas where I don't go so much). But I used to see and hear a lot of him—say, from June 2004 to June 2005—and he's always been a great admin. Bishonen | talk 18:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  10. Support Looks like a great editor even though I havent seen him nither. We need more b-crats --Jaranda(watz sup) 18:53, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support. I've not had any real interaction with him, but I've seen his name around and this combined with his excellent record and well written introduction means I think he is exactly the sort of person who should be a bureaucrat. Thryduulf 20:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support - 19 FAs says it all to me. FCYTravis 20:39, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  13. Support I thought you said you couldn't go online too often because your home connections busted... oh well- Malaysia Boleh! Borisblue 22:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  14. Support Izehar 22:53, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  15. Support, as Johnleemk is a loooong-trusted admin, and we need more bureaucrats. BD2412 T 00:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  16. Absolutely, support. Andre (talk) 00:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  17. Support I don't recognise you , and AFAIK you haven't been involved in many of the recent debates, but bureaucrats should be faceless and low-profile, and that's why I'm keen to support. You have enough experience, you haven't made too may waves, so I don't think you'll be seen as too partisan. --Doc ask? 00:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  18. Support Nothing that hasn't been said already. karmafist 00:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  19. If we must have more bureaucrats, Johnleemk should be one of them. —Charles P. (Mirv) 02:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  20. Support I have a history of supporting the various candidacies of well-qualified people in timezones under-represented in the English Wikipedia for reasons relating less with systemic bias and more with pragmatism (see my vote on Ianblair23's RfA for more on that), and this excellent user does nothing to make me want to change that personal voting guideline. Youngamerican 02:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  21. Bishonen's sockpuppet support. If she'll bid her rep, I'll play along. Besides, bureaucratship barely takes anytime at all. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 10:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  22. Support. Excellent contributor, tackles every possible benchmark with ease. Also an ideal opportunity to tilt the WP:BIAS. -- The Minister of War 11:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  23. Support. As we have a clear need for non-US bureaucrats, I can think of very few better candidates than John. I also agree that not being the most recognisable name on Wikipedia isn't necessarily a bad thing. Rje 13:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  24. Support. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 16:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  25. Support - why not. --FireFox 16:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  26. Support Seems to be a good admin who can and will help the bureaucrat business --Rogerd 21:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  27. No reason to oppose. BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-28 02:39
  28. Sounds like a good candidate. Guettarda 03:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  29. Support. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 04:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  30. Support Not contoversial, not new, why not? -JCarriker 06:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  31. Uh, obvious choice and he'd be fantastic at it. - David Gerard 12:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  32. Support I've reviewed many of Johnleemk's contributions. Interaction with the community has been constructive; if he's above the fray in RFAs, I think that's a good thing for a bureaucrat. Chick Bowen 13:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  33. Support. The record of the current frequenters of the Wikipedia namespace (especially on pages dominated by voting procedures) when it comes to "consensus" is pretty bad. … In order to preserve diversity, an influx of bureaucrats (as well as admins and users) is necessary. The backlog is not a big deal. — David Remahl 19:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  34. Support. I see lots of positive reasons for support. His comments below satisfy me that he knows how to interact with the community. -- DS1953 20:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  35. Support. --POY 21:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  36. Support. No valid reason not to. Silensor 22:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  37. Support. I haven't seen you around for a while, but then again, I haven't been around in a while either. Shows great judgement as an admin, and can be trusted with the makesysop command. --Deathphoenix 23:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  38. Weak Support great editor, long time contributor, absolutely no fear of abuse of powers here... I still dont really feel we need anymore bureaucrats, but I guess I can give him the nod.  ALKIVAR™ 01:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  39. Support. Have been very impressed in my interactions with him in the past. — Catherine\talk 04:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  40. Support. Sarge Baldy 06:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  41. Support experienced and gentlemanly, and I like his answers to the questions. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  42. Support as a trusted administrator with an impressive track record demonstrating good judgement. Hall Monitor 19:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  43. Support, very long term great editor. James F. (talk) 14:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  44. Support. Looks good to me. --WikiFanaticTalk Contribs 20:30, 30 November 2005 (CST)
  45. Support. A dedicated administrator and very mature for a person his age. Handles problems in the most professional matter possible. Jtmichcock 04:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  46. Support. A very experienced Admin with some great contributions, looks ideal for bureaucratship. Leithp (talk) 08:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  47. Support. I trust him to do the job fairly, and I don't think it will take away from his article space work. (FWIW, I don't think there's a pressing need for more bureaucrats, but neither do I believe having a few more would hurt, certainly not to the point of denying a suitable candidate who wants the job.) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  48. Support. JFW | T@lk 21:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  49. Support. Of all the reasons given, I agree with Mindspillage's too. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 03:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  50. Support --Terenceong1992 06:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  51. Support. No reason to do otherwise and he's an active wikipedian as far as I'm concerned. __earth 07:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  52. Support So, in addition to his other powers, he gets to make SysOp's and change usernames and that is still a big deal to some? I see no big deal to it...I say promote him!--MONGO 08:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  53. Support. Give this guy a promotion! --Andylkl [ talk! | c ] 07:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  54. Support. Hands-on experience with this admin has been very, very positive. Tom Lillis 23:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


Oppose

  1. I have never heard of Johnleemk (as far as I can remember), which is not itself a reason to oppose, but in browsing his contributions, I find that he is more an article editor than a janitor. This is highly commendable and enviable, but it does not provide much in the way of material from which to judge his ability to interact with the community and handle controversy. Furthermore, bureaucratship has drawn me further away from actual article-writing, much to my chagrin; I would hate for an editor who is clearly much more productive in the article space than myself to reduce his activity in favor of administrative duties. The shortage of bureaucrats isn't quite that dire. — Dan | Talk 03:44, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
    you didn't hear of me either. :) =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
    Weak Oppose, I agree with Rdsmith on this one. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 03:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
    Extra comment: for some more rationale: we know this guy is a great article writer, but does this mean he can interpret consensus well? Don't see him around AfD or even too often in the Wikipedia namespace for that matter. Give him an article medal, but IMO hasn't quite proven himself in the consensus field. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 03:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
    The fact that he sticks to FAC and not AFD should be a clear sign that he actually does have a clear understanding of what consensus means. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-28 02:23
    Hmm... just a comment, he clearly has very extensive experience in WP:FAC, and it does take a good understanding of cosensus to do well there. I mean, personally, a lot of what I learnt about community intereaction in WP (compromise, striking cosensus, dealing with trolls etc) I learnt from my FAC attempts. Borisblue 06:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
    But does he promote the Featured Articles? Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 07:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
    Just to answer your question about FAC, I doubt it, Raul does all the administrative work on FAC and actively prevents anyone else from doing it, so in short the answer is no. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 08:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
    I knew this, I was just saying how FAC work doesn't mean consensus unless you're Raul. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 08:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
    That makes no sense whatsoever. Consensus is about discussion to come to agreement. This is epitomized by the work at FAC, and bastardized by the work at AFD. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-28 02:26
    But FAC work also involves a LOT of preparation and user interaction. And if the subject is controversial, then expect a bloodbath in FAC. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
    I was active in the community until the Everyking blow-up, which made me go on a semi-Wikibreak. I also moved house at the same time, and lost my home internet connection for nine months, which further compounded my inactivity. So, I resigned myself to simple article editing whenever I could drop by some place with an internet connection. By the time I got my home connection (a few weeks ago), I felt so out of touch with the community that I avoided active interaction in the project namespace. (If you need to know what the disconnect is like, I recognise more names on Wikipedia:Bureaucrats than I do on RFA.) I've been trying to get back into the community, though — I made some posts to the mailing list a few days ago: [1] [2] [3]. I understand why you guys don't feel comfortable with supporting me, and I don't hold it against you nor expect you to change your vote. I just feel I need to explain the circumstances surrounding my disappearance from the community and to make it clear this wasn't intended to be permanent. Johnleemk | Talk 10:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Rdsmith4. Quentin Pierce 08:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per Rdsmith4. '''Aucaman''' 23:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. Oppose - I am simply not comfortable with the circumstances under which this nomination appears to have been made. I cannot help but feel that it is capitalizing on the recent delay in promotions during the American holiday season. Additionally, the note regarding Thanksgiving is presented as a primary motivation to desire an RfB, and the answers at the bottom are somewhat cursory and colloquial. Together, they suggest that the nominee has not thought thoroughly enough regarding what a "bureaucrat" represents for Wikipedia, and users of Wikipedia. Yes, bureaucrats have technical abilities which extend only marginally the abilities of a normal administrator. However, there is also a particular type of leadership which is extended and attributed to bureaucrats, and so far it has not been demonstrated that there is an adequate appreciation and understanding of this. I also prefer to support nominations which are more ethically sound, and the proximity to the recent holiday and associated promotion delays is far too coincidental. It is my inclination that it is to Wikipedia's benefit that we have a community with a diversity of administrators and bureaucrats, but in this context the need for this does not outweigh my concerns. HappyCamper 14:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
    I don't expect you to change your vote, but I think it should be made clear I have been contemplating this business of being a bureaucrat for quite a while — I did not lightly make this decision to put my name forth for consideration. After all, only a bit more than 20 people have ever held this post, so this is not a small deal. It is of course true that the recent backlog did spur my decision, but I have been mulling this ever since Andre first nominated himself for bureaucratship. It was only because I (like most other people) assumed we had a sufficient number of bureaucrats that I avoided requesting bureaucratship. After I realised that due to unintentional factors, our bureaucrats are not always available and sometimes can't deal with RFA as fast as the community would like, I decided it wouldn't hurt to nominate myself. I understand your trepidation and concern, and don't expect it to just vanish, but I would just like to make it known that I do not assume this post is something light. I do think sometimes it's overrated as a big deal, but believe me, I don't think it's a small deal by any means. Johnleemk | Talk 16:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  5. Oppose on the grounds that I have no idea who this editor is and therefore have no basis on which to judge his ability to gauge consensus in RfAs. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:35, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
    Wikipedia doesn't revolve around you, Kelly. You've let me know this many times. Your reasoning is far more appropriate in the 'Neutral column. karmafist 22:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    Please try and refrain from non-constructive comentary on others' votes. Proto t c 15:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    Proto, you have not understood my statement, that was constructive. Kelly's reasoning is far more appropriate for a vote in the neutral column. karmafist 06:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. I don't see this editor active in reading consensus ever: in AfD, or any other such process, nor do I see any participation in RfA, the process he is offering to help out with. This kind of experience (and demonstrable skill) is even more important for 'crats than for admins. It's good that he offered to help out, though. -Splashtalk 16:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  7. Oppose per Rdsmith4 and all of the reasons listed above. Sarah Ewart 00:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  8. Oppose Splash is absolutely right at the need for more RfA experience. Holiday backlog aside, new 'crats still don't seem necessary. If we are to have more, they must impeccable in character and experience. Xoloz 07:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  9. Oppose, agree with Splash. It is not a serious problem if an admin candidate is not promoted for a day or two after his candidacy formally ends. Radiant_>|< 15:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  10. Oppose, not comfortable that he understands policy. CDThieme 21:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Care to expand? I think common courtesy requires that. — David Remahl
  11. Oppose - concerned about comments in the edit summaries mentioned here. No Account 23:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  12. oppose we don't need more beurocrats. — Dunc|☺ 23:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Oppose - Misuse of rollback[4] is terrible for admins to do, and bureaucrats should be the admins with the most community support. Additionally, complains about other users' blanket reverts with no reason, and breaks civility[5]. --Phroziac . o º O (mmmmm chocolate!) 23:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    Both those things happened last year, and could perhaps be put down to immaturity at the time (looking at John's user page, he's not very old). I think it's onlyfair you give him a chance. NSLE (讨论+extra) 00:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    Oh. Nevermind. --Phroziac . o º O (mmmmm chocolate!) 03:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  13. Oppose, one little lull per year is not a reason for additional buereaucrats. I don't particularly think his reasons for being a bureaucrat are good enough, either. Plus I'm a sucker for agecountitis. And I really don't like his consensus views on question 2. Proto t c 13:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    Proto, what does "I'm a sucker for agecountitis" mean? John has been a member of Wikipedia since September 2003. Also, what was it about his answer in question 2 that you did not like? Hall Monitor 21:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    It means John is 15 years old, therefore he smokes pot, makes jokes about pubes, and eggs houses. Also, he plays his music really loud and disrupts his neighbors who are just trying to relax. :-/ as a fifteen year old wikipedian, when I see such discrimination based on a real life detail I have the urge to leave a note saying 'be back when I grow up' Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 06:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    I'll ignore the agecountitis part and focus on the problem with question #2 — what is the disagreement, may I enquire? Johnleemk | Talk 09:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  14. You've got to be kidding. This guy was responsible for an vicious spate of edit warring and led a false campaign to get me blamed for the whole dispute. He's guilty of plain deception, and he's never apologized for it. Everyking 06:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    As I recall, it wasn't me who had four arbitration cases filed against me (and was officially sanctioned by the arbcom for them). It wasn't me who got blocked for breaking the 3RR or the one who set records for certification and endorsement of an RFC. I don't recall being the one who said "i may only get three reverts, but i get to make endless little tweaks to your nonsense in the meantime". [6] Johnleemk | Talk 09:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    This kind of bitterness is unbecoming. You said above that it's a rare thing, and here you are doing it again. --Ryan Delaney talk 15:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  15. Oppose. Neutral for now. I haven't interacted with you before, like I have with all the recent RfBs (the reason, in my opinion, why we don't recognize 1/3 of our current bureaucrats is that most of them were here before Wikipedia gained popularity and momentum). Also, I'm somewhat hesistant to use time zone/culture to be a basis of an RfB. However, just doing a quick scan your contributions look extremely well (especially your 19 featured articles). Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:22, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
    1. OK, I've done a slightly more extensive look into your contributions, Johnleemk, mainly because I haven't interacted with you before. Could I ask you to explain several of your edits? Here you appear to mock the other participants of the agreement, saying, "I ask you to stop reverting? OMG HE SAID I CAN'T CONTRIBUTE!!!!! I say that there is consensus to condense the article? OMG HE'S NOT COUNTING MY OPINION!!!!!!!!" Here you write in your edit summary, "rv; I don't care what the fuck anyone thinks, but first: two wrongs never make a right; second, don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. This goes for all parties in the conflict" In the same conflict, you removed Fred Bauder's vote — you mentioned this incident above, would you mind expanding? You also write "wtf is up with this article?" for another article; in another article talk page, you write, "Holy s***, people" and then later comment, "Your arrogance is suffocating..." to another Wikipedian. Finally, would you also mind clarifying this exhange? Thanks a lot. Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
    2. P.S. I have a dream that one day, people will not judge candidates simply by their time zone and culture, and not rush to judgement based on one's location. Nothing against diversity, of course, but I'm hesistant to use that as a reason for voting. Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
    Okay, regarding the Everyking dispute, it is difficult to clarify just how pissed off everyone was with things. At least one user (Reene) left over it, and according to Tony Sidaway (via IRC), there have been four arbitration cases filed against Everyking, two of which ended with punitive action. The RFC probably set a record for RFC endorsements and certifications. Basically, Everyking had been reverting any and all edits he didn't like to certain articles, commonly Autobiography (Ashlee Simpson album). Hemanshu blocked him for doing so. When Everyking came back, he ranted about the conspiracy against him, so I waded in to help out. At first I was polite (you know, assuming good faith and all that), but Everyking showed a surprising amount of paranoia towards other admins. When I told him I would revert his edits that went against overwhelming consensus (practically everyone else involved was reverting his reverts), he accused me of telling him he couldn't edit the article at all. Furthermore, Everyking kept breaking the spirit (but not letter) of the 3RR, and made no secret about it; read his comment I responded to: "And if I do just wait 24 hours and revert, what policy am I breaking?" Basically I was pissed. So were a lot of other editors. Everyking was paranoid at the time, and kept dramatising. His reverts were always in bad faith (look at the edit summaries I pointed out in the RFC), so I simply stopped assuming good faith with him when it came to Ashlee Simpson-related articles.
    The arbcom elections are another thing. Basically I supported and support Jimbo's policy of leaving the muckrackers be and staying above them. Anthere went further and blanked the page. Then CheeseDreams (a confirmed troll) blanked the section of the talk page where she and others discussed the page blanking. This was clearly in bad faith (so were most of her other edits to the arbcom election pages), and like many other editors, I feel no obligation to assume good faith once someone has proven he/she is acting in bad faith.
    Regarding the revertion of Fred Bauder's edit, I feel like such an ass now and see where I was wrong. However, at the time, the disendorsements page was still in use, and Fred was adding his disendorsements to the endorsement page. Thus, I added a message to his talk page informing him of that. Nevertheless, it seems Fred never forgave me.
    That "wtf" edit summary reflected my confusion at the time because the main article was a jumble of duplicated sections again and again. Looking at the page history didn't help, so you can understand my confusion over the article's status. And for the exchange with Adraeus, bear in mind he/she had been making a lot of bad faith edits to the arbcom election pages, so I was quite skeptical of his/her willingness to co-operate with consensus. Then, he/she began yelling loudly that the NPOV policy applies outside the article namespace and therefore we ought to have a disendorsements page. When Shane and I pointed out that in a Wikipedia context "article" refers only to pages in the article namespace, Adraeus insisted an article could also be a page in the project namespace. This, combined with his/her history of bad faith edits, led me to decide he/she was just another troll deciding to have some fun with the arbcom elections. Johnleemk | Talk 07:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
    Thanks for the reply! I understand the situation around the edits now, but I'm a bit concerned about the lack of civility when things are frustrating. If those circumstances happened now, do you think you would react in the same way? What do you think you've learned from those incidents? Thanks a lot. Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
    Well, I like to think I would react in a less emotional manner, but unfortunately, it's difficult to really 100% guarantee anything. I would probably have been more careful with Fred Bauder's edit. The Everyking scandal is a tough one, because it was so frustrating to see his brilliant contributions on one side and his terrible bad faith reverts on the other. I think I would not change much of what I did in that scandal because anyone will get frustrated after someone makes false accusations and brags about breaking the intent of a rule for two or three months. Under the circumstances, I think anyone would have done something similar to what I did. I am sorry for what I did, but I can't guarantee that won't happen again. It should be noted Everyking's case was quite unique, though — few people have the tenacity to keep up his reverting campaign for as long as he did. If some of those few people try to do it again, the odds are huge that I won't be involved this time. The arbcom situations were unique, too, in that we were trolled heavily by muck-rakers. I can't say I've lost much sleep about writing "fuck" in an edit summary directed to a user the arbcom has since banned for an infinite period. Like I said, I feel no obligation to assume good faith once it's clear someone is acting in bad faith, because in such a case, nothing will work — an RFC will only toughen the resolve of both sides, and an RFM will be pointless because bad faith and good faith users are arguing from totally different premises that not even a mediator can bridge. In the future, I'll probably be more likely to step away and chill out in such cases, though, or perhaps ask someone on IRC to take a look. That much I can tell you. I've found third-party engagement never hurts (which is why I tend to use RFM even though my experience with it has always let me down).
    The cases where I'm uncivil are actually a rarity, since I always assume good faith the first time I interact with somebody, no matter how rude the person may be. If the other acts in good faith, the situation is almost always resolved. If the other is acting in bad faith, then it's going to get ugly (although I always try my best to avoid incivility). User talk:Johnleemk/Archive1 records a couple of interactions — one with Drbalaji md and another with Faedra. In both cases, I responded politely ([7] [8]). In Faedra's case, he/she jumped to conclusions a bit too fast and we parted amicably (refer to my talk page archive). In Drbalaji's case, he turned out to be a troll who eventually left. I feel he could have contributed to Wikipedia, but his refusal to accept Wikipedia policy made this impossible. I know I'm not very good at clarifying things (just see what happened with Alai's questions below), but all I can say is I apologise for my incivility and do not condone it, but as I am human, it's hard to prevent it if heavily provoked (though I will do my best to refer to third parties first and hopefully prevent a blow-up on my part). Johnleemk | Talk 07:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
    Again, thanks for the response. Regardless of how this RfB turns out, would you mind trying to appear more civil even in the most frustrating of circumstances? (And I certainly understand the frustration.) Society is often judged by how we treat our lowest (trolls and vandals) rather than how we treat our highest. I've seen a RfA crash just because of apparent incivility towards a vandal. Thanks a lot! Oh, still neutral for now; I need more time. Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    Of course not — as I said, I always try to maintain decorum. I just snap after prolonged periods of aggression, although even so I try to prevent this (if I cursed every time I got upset about something on Wikipedia, I'd have more than one edit summary with the word "fuck" in it). It's also notable that all these incidents occurred almost over a year ago, and I have steered clear of controversy since. Johnleemk | Talk 07:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    Sorry, but while you're a great contributor, I just don't think you're ready yet, though I may support in the future. The interaction with Everyking on his oppose vote above didn't inspire the most confidence, and I think that our bureaucrats should be civil in all situations. Oppose. Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral You seem like a good admin and very dedicated to the project, but you need more community interaction, I've never heard of you before. -Greg Asche (talk) 07:52, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
    Neutral, it appears you've been around for quite some time, but I do not recognize you either... Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 07:57, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
    I don't recognize 1/3 of our current b-crats...  Grue  08:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. Neutral and pondering. I'm skeptical about the "we clearly need more" argument, though I'll grant you some diversity wouldn't hurt; so I'm somewhat more tempted by this novel "pitch" than with the general case. OTOH, answers to questions 1 and 2 are sufficiently vague and open to the use of discretion as to be consistent with almost any future pattern of promotion. If the candidate could expand, tighten up, exemplify, compare and contrast with existing practice, or otherwise clarify his answers, I'd be much obliged. Alai 03:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
    Basically I think our existing practice is fine. I'm not sure how to further clarify my opinion, but basically, after having gone through the archives of successful and unsuccessful nominations, I think our current practice is fine. IMO, the 80% rule is a good rule of thumb for predicting how I would judge successful nominations, but it's not the final arbiter by any means. I would discount obvious sockpuppet votes, but in those where the situation was fuzzy, I might weight them less than other votes. Likewise with irrational votes — I would almost certainly not discard them (unless given a very strong reason to do so, such as clear evidence of sockpuppetry) but I would weight them less compared to other votes. Is this good enough, or is there anything specific you would like me to answer? Johnleemk | Talk 10:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
    I'm actually less clear than before -- which is saying something. What are your criteria for deciding whether a vote is a 'fuzzy sockpuppet' (doesn't that sound cute?), or irrational, and just how much less weight would you give them? The trouble is that "reasonableness" tests are leaving things entirely in the judgement of the person making the decision, and if you're going to give yourself broad discretion to act as you think best, people are, as per several of the votes above, going to want to see a track record of making such judgements in a reliably sensible way. I recognise the problems with trying to make this too mechanistic, but "trust me to do this right" also raises concerns. Alai 18:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
    A sockpuppet would be a newly created account with few (>50 or thereabouts) edits or an anonymous vote. I find "irrational" votes to be quite rare on RFA, but I wouldn't heavily weight them less if they appeared unless they happened to be a consistent pattern of voting/action (although typically if such bad faith stuff were consistent, I would wonder why this user hadn't ended up on RFAr yet). I don't expect broad discretion, as I don't believe sockpuppet/irrational votes should be heavily weighted less — they just need to be taken into account. If the nomination were flooded with them, weighting wouldn't matter because this would show a clear pattern of an organised campaign to get the user elected (or not elected). And speaking of a track record, fuddlemark incidentally showed me today how much AFD has improved since it was VFD, so I ventured for the first time in quite a while into the abyss and spent a couple of productive hours closing deletion debates. I also have some older VFD debate closures, but I suppose not many have the time to dig those up. The standards I applied then and now are essentially the same, though. Johnleemk | Talk 19:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
    I just thought of something else to add — my thoughts on the meaning of consensus. I believe consensus cannot be judged by mere numbers, as a consensus means general agreement among the community on a particular issue. In this sense, m:polls are evil. Unfortunately, they are a necessary evil, and this is why RFA and other such projects on Wikipedia use polls to gauge consensus. Ideally, consensus is unanimous, but in cases where it is not, the objectors should be in a very small minority. A nomination with 60 support votes, 20 oppose votes and 5 neutral votes is far from consensus, while a nomination with 60 support, 10 object and 3 neutral almost certainly (barring exceptional instances) has consensus. I think I have a healthy respect from consensus based on my experience with FAC, as it is one of the last few places on Wikipedia where we go by consensual agreement and not mere numbers. Johnleemk | Talk 14:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
    Obviously I agree with you that actual consensus is greatly preferable to mere "supermajority". But I'm not sure how that helps us here, unless there's reform of the process on the table, as well as just another candidate to run the existing one. And if such reform is on the table, I'd greatly prefer to unbundle the two. Alai 18:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
    I don't intend to reform the process — I was just thinking of better ways to clarify what I've been saying. I'm apparently not very good at this. Johnleemk | Talk 19:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
    I think we got there eventually. I have a much better idea now, thank you. Am now neutral-tending-towards-support, though with eight opposes (some better-rationalised than others) it may be fairly moot at the point. Alai 19:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. Neutral for now, as per the reasons in the oppose votes - (s)he really seems to be much more active in article space, and it would be a shame if (s)he had to cut back on that... ナイトスタリオン ✉ 11:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutral Good editor and admin, but it is very hard to tell how you judge consensus in actual practice when you have not been processing AFD, TFD, CFD, etc. lately. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
    If you're worried, why not promote and see what happens? Any decision (including the promotion) can be reversed; all it takes is that people agree. — David Remahl 19:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
    What? Can you point me to where it is that the community has, by mere discussion de-bureaucratted or de-adminned someone? We can't. It is matter of enormous effort to even begin to de-admin someone and to de-crat someone has never even been tried. It happened once, but that was actually voluntary. -Splashtalk 01:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
    Actually, thanks to fuddlemark, I've rediscovered the joy of closing AFD debates (I'm not kidding). I've been helping clear the backlog over the past few days, and a simple look at my contributions will show more than a few debates closed. Most of them are controversial because other admins always seem to get to the easy ones first. Johnleemk | Talk 19:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  5. Neutral, because I don't think the apparent rationale for the timing of this nomination (a short delay in processing RFAs due to a holiday) is a worthwhile rationale. —Cleared as filed. 22:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments

  • According to Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations he's #2 on the list with 19 FAs. Very experienced, I would say. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:39, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, I will have only intermittent internet access from 10AM December 2 UTC till somewhere around December 4. I will log on to Wikipedia at least once or twice during this period, but I'm not sure when, exactly. This is because I will be going outstation on a trip that cannot be postponed. Thanks for your understanding. Johnleemk | Talk 12:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?
A. Yes, I have read them. I think it's blindingly obvious that there has to be a clear-cut consensus for the user to be promoted. Although this is typically judged by the 80% rule, I don't believe in hewing blindly to the numbers — what makes a candidate who only got 79% of the votes so different from one who got 81%? (I'll answer how I'll deal with these cases in the next question.)
2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
A. So, to tackle such complex situations, I would have to first take into account the possibility of sockpuppeting. In addition, I would look to see if those opposing and supporting have rational reasons for doing so (i.e. "respects other editors" or "insults newbies") or gave none at all (an irrational reason might be "I support him for his promise to block this guy I hate"). I would not discount any votes solely on these criteria, but they might tilt my decision ever-so-slightly in favour of promoting or not promoting. In the end, if I find that there's no consensus but we might get one, I would extend the nomination for a couple of days before closing it.
3. Wikipedians expect Bureaucrats to adhere to high standards of fairness, knowledge of policy and the ability to engage others in the community. Why do you feel you meet those standards?
A. Well, as I said, I've been here for more than two years, and been an admin for almost 75% of them. I've taken part in few controversies. When I helped out at what was called VFD in the first few months of my adminship, none of my calls were questioned. I've also never had my interpretation of policy called into question, and almost half of my edits have been to the Talk, Wikipedia or Wikipedia talk namespaces. I started the Preliminary Deletion proposal, and to this day it's the only major deletion reform policy to have officially had a majority vote in its favour. I think this is proof I am active within our community and have a good understanding of our people and the policies we make and adhere to.
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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.