Misplaced Pages

:Requests for adminship/Jc37: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:40, 28 September 2006 editDanntm (talk | contribs)3,251 edits Neutral← Previous edit Revision as of 02:10, 28 September 2006 edit undoIronGargoyle (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators152,221 edits →[]: supportNext edit →
Line 50: Line 50:
#:When you go through my contributions list, you may see several edit summaries saying: "misc comments" for my CfD responses. I tend to answer all CfDs on a page at once (when possible) rather than a single edit for each nomination, so you could probably multiply my CfD edits at least by 8 (or more). My main edit on Robin and other articles/lists are typically done mostly in one or two edits as well. I guess I never saw the need to "rack up" my edit count. But I do understand your concern. Thanks "chief" : ) - ] 20:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC) #:When you go through my contributions list, you may see several edit summaries saying: "misc comments" for my CfD responses. I tend to answer all CfDs on a page at once (when possible) rather than a single edit for each nomination, so you could probably multiply my CfD edits at least by 8 (or more). My main edit on Robin and other articles/lists are typically done mostly in one or two edits as well. I guess I never saw the need to "rack up" my edit count. But I do understand your concern. Thanks "chief" : ) - ] 20:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' - ] 19:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC) #'''Support''' - ] 19:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Because the user is interested in XfD, The Misplaced Pages namespace edit count is good. This user is interested in deletion tasks by the look of it--not vandal fighting--so I think that should be kept in mind when evaluating this RfA. I know that an admin has a wide range of responsibilities, and it seems as though most opposition stems from answers to the blocking questions. I don't think there is anything within the user's past edit history (or within said answers) though, to indicate anything but a calm and fair temperment applied to what ''little'' blocking Jc37 is likely to be doing. ] 02:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

'''Oppose''' '''Oppose'''
#'''Oppose''' Answers to questions, particularly blocking. I need a more thoughtful analysis than just 'the rules are the rules and they're just as applicable to 7 minute old vandals as they are to long term contributors'. 'Cool down blocks' on established users are also rather questionable in their effectiveness on established users in my opinion. --] | ] 09:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC) #'''Oppose''' Answers to questions, particularly blocking. I need a more thoughtful analysis than just 'the rules are the rules and they're just as applicable to 7 minute old vandals as they are to long term contributors'. 'Cool down blocks' on established users are also rather questionable in their effectiveness on established users in my opinion. --] | ] 09:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:10, 28 September 2006

Jc37

Voice your opinion. (2/10/9) Ending 06:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Jc37 (talk · contribs) – I've been editing on Misplaced Pages since around March, and reading it for several years now. List of characters on The West Wing (and my general leaning towards organization) finally persuaded me to make my first edit : ) Since then I've still been a "reader", but also joined several WikiProjects, and am active on CfD. jc37 06:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Self-nomination - jc37 06:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Misplaced Pages backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: Helping with the "X"fD pages (especially CfD) And helping with the "Speedy" work, as well.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Misplaced Pages, are there any of which you are particularly pleased with, and why?
A:
  1. I've done some ReOrg work on several list pages. (I enjoy organizing, among other things.) These are a few of my favourites:
    1. The West Wing was what finally got me to break down and edit Misplaced Pages the first time. (See: User:Jc37/Articles/The West Wing for some examples.)
    2. Did a massive clean-up and page organization of the Misplaced Pages:Userboxes gallery pages, especially the old Misplaced Pages:Userboxes/Media page (now apparently deleted): I split it into subsections, then moved the sections to individual pages, leaving "media" itself to be a page of links to the other pages; and the Misplaced Pages/Userboxes/Interests page, moving several subsections to their own pages (such as science and history).
    3. Did a clean-up/ReOrg on Robin (comics) that I liked.
    4. List of locations of the DC Universe Complete ReOrg, and also standardized listing (locations of the locations at the end; added punctuation, wikifications, etc)
  2. I created the userbox for Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Greyhawk.
  3. Did two major ReOrgs of Userbox policy proposal. The first separated the list of guidelines by theme, and general clean-up; the second, broke those themes into sections, and clarified throughout.
  4. I'm also rather active in CfD.
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: Edit conflicts would seem to be the way of Misplaced Pages, these days. "Communication is the key." The best answer is discussion. Find out what the issue is, and why there may be a disagreement, and discuss. Keeping an open mind is a good thing (though allowing someone else to walk all over you is not : )
4. Under what circumstances would you consider blocking an established user. --Mcginnly | Natter 08:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
The answer may sound flippant, but it's not: It depends on the situation.
There's a list of various reasons to block on WP:BLOCK, but typically it's to give a "cool down period" or a "slow down" period. Doesn't matter if it's WP:3RR, WP:VAND, or WP:CIVIL.
I note your use of "established user". Except for the added weight such a user has on various process pages (such as this one), I think the rules are set up to be equal for all. That's one of Misplaced Pages's strengths - "anyone can edit". : ) - jc37 08:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
General comments

Discussion (for expressing views without numbering)

Support

  1. Weak Support. Despite the pile-on to Mcginnly's position, I actually thought the nominee's response to question four was reasonable. The nominee gave an answer supported by his reasons and cited policy to support that answer. I find it a stretch to turn "I think the rules are set up to be equal for all" into "the rules are the rules and they're just as applicable to 7 minute old vandals as they are to long term contributors". My only real hesitation is the low number of contributions given the length of time here, hence my weak (moral) support. Agent 86 19:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
    When you go through my contributions list, you may see several edit summaries saying: "misc comments" for my CfD responses. I tend to answer all CfDs on a page at once (when possible) rather than a single edit for each nomination, so you could probably multiply my CfD edits at least by 8 (or more). My main edit on Robin and other articles/lists are typically done mostly in one or two edits as well. I guess I never saw the need to "rack up" my edit count. But I do understand your concern. Thanks "chief" : ) - jc37 20:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support - Mike 19:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support Because the user is interested in XfD, The Misplaced Pages namespace edit count is good. This user is interested in deletion tasks by the look of it--not vandal fighting--so I think that should be kept in mind when evaluating this RfA. I know that an admin has a wide range of responsibilities, and it seems as though most opposition stems from answers to the blocking questions. I don't think there is anything within the user's past edit history (or within said answers) though, to indicate anything but a calm and fair temperment applied to what little blocking Jc37 is likely to be doing. Irongargoyle 02:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose Answers to questions, particularly blocking. I need a more thoughtful analysis than just 'the rules are the rules and they're just as applicable to 7 minute old vandals as they are to long term contributors'. 'Cool down blocks' on established users are also rather questionable in their effectiveness on established users in my opinion. --Mcginnly | Natter 09:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
    • While I respect your freedom of choice to such an opinion, I disagree with your assessment of my response. I did not say "Rules are rules". We live by the WP:5P here, and that includes WP:IAR when appropriate. My response was and is: "It depends on the situation". It doesn't matter if you're a 7 minute vandal or an experienced user with 50,000 edits. If you revert an article 5 times in 5 minutes, there's a fairly decent likelyhood that you're going to be blocked. If there is a heavily contested debate going on, wading in and blocking everyone is a typically a bad idea. For one thing, it likely isn't going to help move toward resolution of the debate. And there are other ways to cool a situation besides blocking, as well. It's a matter of reading the situation. And don't forget what I said in answer 3 about communication. All in all, there are just too many additional possible circumstances to list. As I said, every situation is different, and in my opinion, blanket statements about an unknown future are likely not helpful. Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball, and I don't happen to own one either : ) - jc37 05:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Mcginnly. --Nearly Headless Nick 10:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose: per above. —Wknight94 (talk) 10:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per Mcginnly. Michael 10:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. Strong oppose. Suggest that you take some time to read through Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Giano, and re-consider Mcginnly's rationale. - Mailer Diablo 14:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
    I don't think the Giano case is relevant with resepct to his answer. Anyone who is persistently revert warring could be blocked regardless of their status. The Giano case you cite was a strange case where Tony blocked him since he 'thought' his opinion was disruptive. That is a completely different ball game to a block due to disruption on an article. Mailer diablo, i respect your opinion, but are you implying that a long term user can never be blocked? This makes no sense and as jc37 states "It depends on the situation." I would hope that any admin or established user who was blocked for persistent disruptive editing on any article would admit their transgression and apologise for acting like a child. I would also hope that such circumstances are very rare. David D. (Talk) 21:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose per all reasons above. Please try again after three months. --Siva1979 16:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. Lack of experience of encyclopedia building, per low mainspace edit count and preponderance of minor edits (often not marked as such). Espresso Addict 16:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. Fails several of my criteria and poor answers. Themindset 17:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose per above. I suggest withdrawling and trying again in a few months. Stubbleboy 19:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose per all above, particularly your answers to the questions and low main space edits. Wikipediarules2221 23:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral. Seems like a good editor with a good edit count, but the answers to the questions were not at all impressive, particularly when replying to Mcginnly's. This vote may change either way. Moreschi 09:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral. Per Moreschi. íslenskur fellibylur #12 (samtal) 11:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral per Moreschi – perhaps try again in a few months' time? — riana_dzasta wreak havoc|damage report 12:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. Neutral. Jc37 seems like a very friendly, helpful editor, but I don't think s/he quite grasps the nuances of WP policy as it pertains to blocking. Perhaps admin coaching might be a better next step. -- Merope 14:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. Neutral Answers to 1,3 & 4 don't demonstrate a range of experience with other editors or show an understanding of policies. I suggest that this editor either goes for an editor review and/or admin coaching before reapplying in ~3000 edits time. (aeropagitica) 16:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  6. Neutral You need more experience before I can support you.--Húsönd 17:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  7. Neutral Looks like a good editor with good contribs. Just need more experience. JungleCat talk/contrib 20:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  8. Neutral, this user scored 16 on my RfA points table, enough to warrant a Neutral. -- Lego@lost Rocks Collide! | 22:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  9. Neutral Weak answers.-- danntm C 01:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)