Misplaced Pages

:Requests for adminship/Jmh649 - 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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fainites (talk | contribs) at 23:41, 13 August 2010 (→Support). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 23:41, 13 August 2010 by Fainites (talk | contribs) (→Support)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Jmh649

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (28/7/7); Scheduled to end 07:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

Jmh649 (talk · contribs) – Jmh649 has been around for a few years now. He has been a content-heavy editor, with some serious contributions to almost every important medicine-related article in the project. He has shown an interest in maintenance and namespace work. There have been a few tough patches, such as a scrap over Rorschach test, but if anything he acted in an exemplary fashion and it will given him experience in dispute resolution. I think the tools will be very useful in his ongoing contributions to Misplaced Pages, and I think it highly unlikely that he will abuse them. JFW | T@lk 23:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: JFW has been one of my mentors and I accept and appreciate his nomination. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I hope to use admin tools in a number of ways including: protecting pages that get frequent vandalism, blocking vandals, protecting pages with "pending changes" if this tool becomes permanent, and moving pages to articles names that may already exist as redirects ( which requires a page delete ).
2. What are your best contributions to Misplaced Pages, and why?
A: I have brought four articles to GA. The one I am most proud of is Obesity however am also proud of gout, croup and strep throat. I have uploaded hundreds of images mostly pertaining to medicine and added them to their appropriate pages. User:Lokal Profil and I worked together to create over a hundred maps to illustrate the epidemiology of diseases some of which can be viewed here .
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 gotten involved in a number of debates including ones involving abortion, the Rorschach test, and Transcendental Meditation. I find the most important thing is using the best avaliable evidence from the best avaliable sources then getting input from other Wikipedians through either WP:MED or the notice boards always keeping in mind that Misplaced Pages is a work in progress.
Additional optional question from Doc Quintana
4. Give me your interpretation of when IAR is appropriate
A: I interpret IAR to mean that one should use common sense, that one does not need to know all the rules and regulations to begin or to continue contributing to the encyclopedia. As an example in medical related topics there is a balance between presenting information in a consistent format and presenting information in a logical order. We have WP:MEDMOS which lists the preferred order however sometimes in conditions that are primarily of historical significance the history section should come first, in others the classification of the disease may be do complicated to be listed first and is really only relevant after an introduction to the condition.
Additional optional question from Paralympiakos
5. Could you please explain the use of rollback in edits such as this? Some people choose to use rollback for edits that are self-explanatory. It might be my ignorance and lack of knowledge regarding the subject, but these edits (there are a dozen or so in the last 500 contribs) don't seem like one of those occasions to me. Paralympiakos (talk) 09:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
A: (from Jfdwolff) - this is from a series of internal spam-like activity from RXPhd (talk · contribs) who was dumping List of pharmaceutical companies to all sorts of pages. Giving individual edit summaries would have been very tedious. JFW | T@lk 09:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
A:Thanks JFD here are some difs that explains matters further: This editor added a see also link to List of pharmaceutical companies to nearly 100 hundred pages from erectile dysfunction to clinical trials . A user posted a concern here and requests to stop were posted by a number of users on this users talk page Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Comment - Ok then. I saw what looked like a genuine attempt by the "spammer" to discuss the matter, but upon researching, fair enough. I'm happy enough with the answer. Paralympiakos (talk) 09:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Additional optional questions from Salvio giuliano
6. When, if ever, would you block an editor who hasn't received four warnings?
A: I would block those who have have made obvious legal threats. This is something Misplaced Pages needs to take seriously. I spent 8 months with legal counsel defending myself after the Rorschach test issue as a Misplaced Pages editor filled multiple real life complaints against me. Thankfully I am insured but not everyone is so lucky. Here BTW is an article
7. When, if ever, would indef an IP editor?
A: IP address should never be indef blocked as the people who use an specific IP addresses change. A year would be a maximum and only after multiple shorter blocks.
Additional optional questions from Beetstra
8. What are the Local spam blacklist and the Meta spam blacklist, what are they for, and which are the (core) policies and guidelines that they relate to. How should this functionality be used (also in conjunction with the Local Spam-whitelist and/or XLinkBot)? What would you look at if you were (to handle a request) to blacklist an abused site (I'm using the term 'abused site' with he aim to span more than plain spam)? And what would you look at when you were (to handle a request) to whitelist a specific link on a blacklisted domain or (to handle a request) to de-blacklist the whole domain?
A.These lists are one of the automated ways that Misplaced Pages defends itself from spam. The local list applies only to the English Misplaced Pages while the Meta list applies to all projects. Here is one of the documents that deal with these lists Misplaced Pages:Spam blacklist they are as stated here as a last resort to deal with spammers. The instruction are laid out fairly clearly in that one would need to consider if page protection, blocking a single or a few users, using XLinkBot or an edit filter would be better. The policies they pertain to include Misplaced Pages:Spam and Misplaced Pages:External links. But seriously what I would do is discuss matters with someone with more experience in this domain than I. Much like in real life it is wise to stay within ones competence and currently altering these lists is outside of mine.
(ec, and hence adapted)Thank you for the answer. Both Misplaced Pages:Spam and Misplaced Pages:External links are mere guidelines. Of course, a heavy weapon, as e.g. usage of the spam blacklist (but the MediaWiki namespace contains a couple of other weapons like that), would be based on more than just that. What situations would you envisage that would make you use (or ask users who are there more often to use) these 'weapons'; when would you consider that page protection, blocking or XLinkBot would be futile, and would you then make use of these pages? After all, the admin bit does not come with the ability to block, protect and delete only. --Dirk Beetstra 11:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
This is for widespread, unmanageable spam to a site that has no reasonable legitimate use. Thus if the spam link in question were being added to many pages by multiple unconnected users neither page protection nor blocks would work. And as this link has no legitimate reason for it use XLinkBot would not be the right tool.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


General comments

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Discussion

RfA/RfB toolbox
Counters
Analysis
Cross-wiki
  • Did anything come of the official complaints over the Rorschach test issue? The question is merely for my own curiosity, feel free not to reply if matters are still ongoing or if you wish to leave it behind. NW (Talk) 13:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Support
  1. Nominator support. JFW | T@lk 07:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  2. Support. --WS (talk) 08:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  3. Strong Support Not only is this editor a strong contributor, but also, has always appeared to show a friendly, professional, and genuinely helpful approach to collaborating. I am sure this can be validated by others who have worked with the articles pertaining to the vast reach of the Medicine Wikiproject, where he regularly helps both new and experienced users with article and task force problems and suggestions, as can be seen at the project's talk page where he is the second most highest contributor. Civil, professional, knows his way around the encyclopedia, and willing to help other do the same. Can only further benefit the project and the encyclopedia as a whole. Calmer Waters 10:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  4. Support. Jmh has contributed substantially to the project. Fantastic contributor. Good answers. Actually admits to being in disputes (wow!). Well experienced. I would probably trust your average vandal-fighter with the tools in these circumstances, so I absolutely would trust a valuable encyclopedist with them. Swarm 10:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  5. Per Calmer Waters. James is exactly the sort of editor we want as an administrator, regardless of how often he will use the tools. NW (Talk) 11:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  6. Longterm user, with clue and experience of a contentious area. Having now read through much of the material that lead up to it, I'm happy to disregard the one short block per time served, especially as it was over a year ago and relates to a content dispute. ϢereSpielChequers 11:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  7. Support. Looks like a candidate who has contributed a great deal, has made the effort to understand Misplaced Pages policies and practices, and is good at communication. Answers to questions look fine to me, and I see no reasons at all not to support. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  8. Strong Support. James is an excellent content contributor and understands well how policies apply to articles – and those are the main reason for us being here. More importantly, in my interactions with him, he is always willing to listen to reasoned advice and act on it. No sysop starts out "fully-formed", but I am convinced that James will ease himself into the role of administrator, broadening his experience with the tools as he goes along – and be a better admin for it. I really believe we should be encouraging more good content contributors to take up the mop, rather than expecting candidates to artificially garner huge edit counts at NPP and AIV. The question is actually "Do we trust him with the tools?" I do, and you should too. --RexxS (talk) 13:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  9. Support, from a brief review everything looks good to me. The odd minor concern is brought up in the oppose and neutral sections, but I certainly don't see anything remotely worthy of withholding my support - a generally competent and well-intentioned editor who would do well with additional tools. ~ mazca 14:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  10. Support Seems positively engaged in and well connected with the editing community. Good talk page correspondence, including well-handled disputes. No red flags I can see. Townlake (talk) 14:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  11. Support, impressive contributor! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  12. Support Thank you for not having hateful userboxes. Keepscases (talk) 16:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  13. Support - impressive contributor, who I am sure would make positive use of the tools. I see nothing in his history to convince me otherwise.  Begoon 16:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  14. Support – Great editor that I trust with the mop. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 17:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  15. Support I have seen this user around WP:MED quite a bit over my tenure here. He is a great contributor and I am confident that he will use the tools effectively. Tyrol5 17:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  16. Strong support: Solid and prolific content contributor with a demonstrated understanding of this site's policies and goals. James has in-the-trenches experience in handling on-wiki conflicts, which should be a prerequisite - not a negative - for admin candidates. I have no concerns, and I think Misplaced Pages will unquestionably benefit from giving James a few additional tools. MastCell  17:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  17. Strong Support Extraordinary content editor. Strong advocate for sound and consistent application of Misplaced Pages policies and goals. Extensive experience in highly-contentious areas, always keeps his cool. I would note that this comment below opposing the candidacy is from an editor who was recently subjected to Discretionary Sanctions as a result of an AE commenced by DocJames . DocJames will make an outstanding Admin. Fladrif (talk) 17:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  18. Support Good dude with obviously significant and accurate content contributions. Sometimes seems a bit excitable, but not in an asshole manner like many around here. :P I did mention to him a while back that I would prefer more edit summaries and fewer edits for ease of review, and looking at his contributions he has taken this feedback into consideration. It's particularly important to note when references are added/removed/changed (or content is added without references), as these are the edits which need close review, and he seems to do that pretty well these days. II | (t - c) 19:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  19. Support Great content contributor and good overall editor. More than enough clue to pick up what he needs to know if he decides to get involved in areas where he doesn't have a lot of experience. Dana boomer (talk) 19:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  20. Support unlikely to break the wiki. Pichpich (talk) 19:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
    I think it's virtually impossible to "break" the wiki. Tommy! 19:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  21. Won't delete the main page. BigDom 21:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  22. Support. A good editor with good judgment.   Will Beback  talk  21:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  23. Strong support. Doc James has experience in articles for deletion, helps to maintain and run WP:MCOTW, is already a roll backer and autorights user, with no misuse of these privilages. He is a fast learner, helpful, civil and is very popular among his fellow wikipedians. Misplaced Pages Medicine Project is unfortunately lacking in admins; it is my view that Doc James can fill this gap of lack of medical admins and I feel that he has more than earned the trust of the wikipedian community and should have been made admin a long time ago!--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  24. Weak support - great editor who I can trust with the tools. I would've liked to have seen a more complete answer to Q6, though. Airplaneman ✈ 21:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  25. Support Sure, you seem competent. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  26. Strong Support - I have worked with this user extensively, and have found him to be trustworthy and responsible. I think he would make an excellent admin. ---kilbad (talk) 22:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  27. Support good general experience, should be fine with the mop. Polargeo (talk) 22:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  28. Support What Mastcell says.Fainites scribs 23:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. Although I sympathise with you for the Rorschach test issue and although I deem you an experienced user, I don't think you're experienced enough in admin-related areas to be handed the mop: I'm not entirely satisfied by your answers and 60 edits to AIV and 13 to RFPP are a little too few, if you want to work in those areas. Salvio 12:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. While I often agree with his content positions, the candidate's conduct as described in the ADHD arbitration gave me a negative impression of his interpersonal skills. Skinwalker (talk) 15:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
    Those issues are all at least 12 months old, many are 18-24 months old. Considering that a number of people in the support section who have worked with him before see him as "friendly", "professional", and "willing to listen to reasoned advice", do you think you could provide some more recent evidence? NW (Talk) 16:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
    Yes I misspoke and apologized. This was when I was just starting out as mentioned a couple of years ago.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  3. Strong Oppose I don't think this user understands some fundamental aspects of Misplaced Pages. If he does understand and acts as he does then I have some concerns with misrepresentation. I think he needs more time to improve his understanding before he's given admin tools. (olive (talk) 16:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC))
    "Some fundamental aspects" is a bit vague. Could you please explain further? NW (Talk) 17:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
    Brought a recent ArbCom enforcement against this user in which sanction were applied against her. Thus I am not the least bit surprised. When one edits controversial topic not everyone will agree. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  4. Per Salvio. Also, some proxies can be blocked much longer than a year; as well as some long-term abuse school IPs. I'd also like to reiterate that you are most definitely an asset to Misplaced Pages; it's just I have some experience concerns regarding AIV and RPP. Tommy! 17:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. Per above. Concerns with the answers to questions, fairly recent AE block, and minimal experience in administrative areas. You're a fantastic editor, but I think you would benefit from a little more experience. Sorry, FASTILY 18:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
    12.5 months is fairly recent now? NW (Talk) 19:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  6. Weak Oppose Per Salvio and Fastily. 60 edits to AIV as well as 13 to RFPP are simply no where near enough to show me that you have enough experience if you plan on working in those areas with the tools. That last (and only) block also scares me a bit. It's over a year ago so enough time has passed to not make me scared in that respect but the nature of it is a bit worrying. The fact that you were blocked in the first place, arbitration enforcement, is not a good thing at all. I look forward to seeing you re-submit another RFA in say 3-6 months and if you stay on the track that you currently are on, expect to see me in the support column :)--White Shadows 20:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
    Just as a note wrt RFPP I sometimes post to WT:MED or make direct requests to admins who edit medical topics. Thus these number we collect are not completely accurate. I do however appreciate your encouragement.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
    Thanks for letting me know :) In that case I'll scratch out the RFPP part. I wish that I could support you but there are just too many red flags that I see. I do look forward to seeing Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Jmh649 2 up and running in 3-6 months like I said :)--White Shadows 21:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  7. Strong Oppose, Candidate shows continued propensity towards edit warring, although seems to be more careful not to cross the “electric fence” , with a recent involvement in an edit war, barely avoiding being blocked: . This editor has recent complaints that he doesn’t use edit summaries properly: . Candidate has misrepresented facts and issues in a recent TM ArbCom case and fails to assume good faith, one of the most obvious misrepresentations being his identification of me as being an editor who “primarily edits TM articles” – patently untrue, and obvious to anyone who bothers to even glance at my editing history . Shows a lack of judgment on the part of the candidate. Additionally, per Skinwalker and Salvio, this user has had virtually no experience in administrative areas. Needs a lot more experience in admin areas to show he understands and is able to properly judge administrative situations. Dreadstar ☥ 22:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
    In my view those edits to Transcendental mediation are not revisions of the same content and are seperated by several days. The aim of the Transcendental meditation movement is to establish a new world system based on meditation, so not exactly the easiest subject matters to edit. I think that it is a positive attribute that he is engaging prodtuctively in some of the most controversial and hostile editing environments where many admins would run a mile.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Neutral
  1. Neutral - X!s edit counter....disabled. Can't review contributions to wikispace easily now. Paralympiakos (talk) 09:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
    Have made nearly 27,000 edits. Primarily to the main space. You can use Wikichecker as a backup. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
    See also. Swarm 09:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
    WikiChecker seems down (at least for me). Could you enable X!'s counter, at least for the period of this RFA? Regards SoWhy 09:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
    X! disabled it himself, this isn't Doc's work. Paralympiakos (talk) 09:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
    My bad, I had a cached version of the page somehow. I apologize. Regards SoWhy 11:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
    Right, to tag onto my current neutral, I'm stuck. It's clear that you're a fantastic contributor. You have GAs, you've clearly been active at the medical areas of wikipedia. I think you'd make good use of the tools for the redirect/deletion area, as long as you have the wide consensus of the medical community. However, your answer to question 1 basically hints at work at WP:AIV and WP:RPP and you have 60 and 13 edits respectively in these areas. This for me, isn't enough experience. I'll remain neutral for now, so my apologies, but you are a great contributor, so congrats on that. Paralympiakos (talk) 09:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  2. Neutral I'm not impressed with the candidate's answers so far, but I haven't seen evidence that the candidate would be a detriment to Misplaced Pages if they had the tools yet. Doc Quintana (talk) 11:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  3. Neutral – I'm not really sure whether to oppose or support, but I really would like to support. User in question has been in arbitration one time in 2009, which led to his 48 hour long block in July that year. His edit restrictions were revert-related, with only one revert per page per week. On the other hand, this user has made almost 30000 contributions to the English Misplaced Pages. I take the safest by going with neutral. /HeyMid (contributions) 12:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  4. Neutral (I explained elsewhere why I don't feel a strong obligation to vote support or oppose), though I am not impressed by the answers. IMHO, there are several cases where blocks are given without the total 4 warnings, there are cases of IPs blocked for >1 year (though sporadic), and cases of links being blacklisted even though there is only one editor using that specific link in its sole edit. You seem to know policy and guideline well, or read them well, but also there WP:IAR needs to be used to apply exceptions to the cold rules that are laid forward. I've not seen the imagination necessary to see that cases can be so blatant that waiting to handle is a waste of time, or see further than the one edit that is evaluated, which even (may) result in continuing damage. --Dirk Beetstra 14:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  5. Neutral Some of the answers aren't complete (for example, Q6). Good work writing, though. —fetch·comms 16:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  6. Neutral X!'s edit counter was a good place to get ideas of the pages and areas we need to look out for. As such, I will not support any candidacy started between the 13th and the 17th, because doing enough research to be confident that a candidate passes would involve an unreasonable amount of work. If it were disabled permanently I would obviously have to reconsider my position, but my belief is that doing so would enhance the weight given to diffs that may or may not be isolated incidents. In answer to the rationale for the pause, I would say that even as a regular in the unpopular column, opposes based solely on editcountitis can be, should be and are already ignored by crats. --WFC-- 18:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  7. Neutral. I've been arguing for less stringent RFA criteria recently, but the block appears to be alarming, so I can't support. Esteffect (talk) 21:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)