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

JGHowes[edit]

Final: (82/3/1); ended 17:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

JGHowes (talk · contribs) - I have worked with User:JGHowes for 20 months. He is a good article writer, understands policy well, and always maintains a civil demeanor. He has 6 FAs, 6 GAs, and 12 DYKs to his credit. These articles are primarily in the railroading, Scouting, and religious areas, but include other areas as well. He is active in many areas, very helpful, and always helps build the encyclopedia in a postive manner. I'm sure he'll make a fine admin. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination by Wizardman: I like how Rlevse is a nominator in this RfA, not just because the two have worked together a lot, but because I see a lot of Rlevse's abilities in JGHowes. The guy is, as Rlevse says, primarily an article writer, so he definitely understands the meaning of why we're here. I read the Royal Blue (B&O train), one of his FAs, and it is certainly a great read, along with his other FAs and GAs. He understands our fair use policy very well, as evident in Image:Scout Jamboree 1937.jpg and other images. Plus, everytime I see him on a talk page, I see a constructive comment that benefits our encyclopedia. His edits are strewn about all over the namespaces, in areas that would show he's greatly qualified to be an administrator. Even when looking at his first edit, I see a great editor who would clearly be a great benefit to the encyclopedia with the extra tools. Wizardman 15:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I humbly accept. JGHowes talk - 21:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoy editing on Wikipedia and would be happy to help with the mop. As my contribs and past interactions will show, I like the collaborative nature of the project and am not one to seek a lot of drama. It is really amazing, when you think about it, that here we are — largely known only by our screen names — yet working together as a community to develop the world's first and best online encyclopedia, so if I can contribute to the project's betterment with the additional admin tools, I'll gladly do so.

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I've participated some at AFD, IFD, CV, and a fair amount at AIV, and would likely help out there.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I enjoy creating and writing articles about little-known historical events and esoteric subjects, in particular, and would say that the two FA's I created, Royal Blue (B&O train) and Baltimore Steam Packet Company, would be my best contributions to date. I have many more articles in mind on my "to-do" list for the future! Going through the FAC process, I find, is very beneficial in becoming proficient at the details of reference formatting, image licensing, layout, template usage, etc., as well as writing a comprehensive, balanced article, of course. But I also consider my gnome-like minor corrections of stub articles on sundry topics to be of value, too.
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: My ideal is to be the kind of editor described in npov, "the rare editor who goes out of his way to present views opposite to his own". I studiously avoid ad hominem-type arguments and OR, trying to steer the discussion back to reliable sources and wikipedia guidelines. I've had no major conflicts, and where differences of opinion have arisen, a mutually acceptable compromise was worked out. As an example, I informally mediated a dispute between two camps regarding the Lassie controversy and both sides were pleased with the outcome.

Optional question from xenocidic

4. As an administrator, you will come across some extremely vulgar language and often come under attack for your actions. You will most likely have to deal with some fairly troublesome users. The users you block will sometimes ask to be unblocked. Please review the very NSFW scenario outlined at User:Xenocidic/RFAQ and describe how you would respond to the IP's request to be unblocked.
A: Well, having experienced life in a college dorm and in the military, I think I've heard it all anyway! Parenthetically, I have a theory that those unfamiliar with Wikipedia may think of it as a kind of blog, where such language and opinions are commonplace, and so newbies may not realize how beyond the pale such actions are viewed here. Having said all that, I cannot envision a scenario where I, as a neophyte admin, would unblock or undo another admin's actions without first consulting with that admin to make sure he or she was in complete agreement. In the example presented, I think both the original block and second block were about right, and would let the second, 1-week block stand. Given the blockee's assurance that he has learned his lesson, I would reply welcoming him to make constructive edits to Wikipedia after the block expiration, and in the meantime read up on the Wikipedia policies/guidelines enumerated at ((anon))

Optional question from  Asenine 

5. In his daily editing, a newbie user edits a prominent page. His edit contains reliable sources. Unbeknownst to them, the edit they just made was against an overwhelming consensus on the talk page. Disgruntled editors then take action and replace the edited text with their own version which was decided with consensus. Their version, however, does not include any sources at all, and is unverifiable. What should be done to resolve the issue effectively, and which editor is doing the right thing according to policy?
A: This is a tough question, because essentially it requires balancing two competing guidelines, i.e., consensus vs. WP:RS. The first step would be for all editors involved to discuss it on the article's talk page. Consensus can change, after all. Although the one party is citing reliable sources, it could still be problematic as regards WP:UNDUE, for instance. On the other hand, WP:V is a core policy that should not be overruled. Because this example involves multiple editors (not just two), if the two sides involving multiple editors cannot come to an agreement on the talk page, an article RFC could be used to get wider community involvement to resolve.
Anti fence-sitting question from Kmweber
6. Are cool-down blocks ever acceptable?
A: Definitely not. WP:COOLDOWN states unequivocally such a block should never be used.
Follow-up Do you agree with the policy you have linked to? Why or why not? Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 03:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the policy because the purpose of a block is to protect Wikipedia from damage or disruption, not to punish. If an editor violates 3RR, to cite an obvious example, he is blocked because his actions are disruptive, not to "cool down" per se. Although, I see some discussion has taken place regarding the precise wording of WP:COOLDOWN and its application at WT:BP.

Optional question from Keepscases

7. Do you intend on editing Wikipedia whilst flying an airplane?
A: As a pilot? Absolutely not, that would be out of the question from a safety standpoint. All my online editing is done on the ground, although I get teased for using my BlackBerry to edit and check my watchlist, as symptomatic of a true wikiholic. :o)


Optional (CSD related) questions from Icewedge:

8. In terms of CSD G3, what constitutes an obvious hoax? Where does the line between hoaxes that should be SD and hoaxes that should be sent to AFD lie?
A: As I understand WP:HOAX#Dealing with hoaxes, generally speaking a suspected hoax should not be speedy deleted, but instead tagged ((hoax)) and taken to AfD where a wider discussion can take place. A CSD G3 would be appropriate only in the case of really blatant vandalism.
9. Under what criteria, or was this more of an IAR SD?[1]
A: More of an IAR-type conclusion that it was certain to be deleted, but only after the consensus made that apparent at AfD.

Optional questions from Presumptive:

10. Would you be willing to accept a term of 12 months? Some say that this will keep admins editing and not to become wikipedia military police. Others say that a fixed term would increase responsible administration. Or do you want to be appointed Administrator For Life?
A: I will answer by saying that, to my mind, an admin is simply an editor who's entrusted with some additional tools because of his or her experience and demonstrated understanding of Wikipedia practices. Admins and b'crats I know continue creating/editing articles (I certainly intend to do so). As long as the admin uses the buttons appropriately, there's no reason to take them away after some arbitrary period.

Optional questions from Winger84

11. Do you believe that it is possible for a user that has been blocked for reasons other than 3RR - making an allowance for the fact that it is possible for two or more editors to experience moments of extreme stubbornness, believing that their edit(s) is/are correct - to ever be completely trusted again? Or, do you believe in the line of thinking, "Once blocked, always watched?" If you believe that it is possible for complete trust to be regained, what is a "reasonable threshold" of time - whether it be specifically time or a number of successful edits - for that trust to be regained? What about a user that has previously been banned but perhaps was able to convince administrators to reinstate their account?

A: I believe strongly that people can and do reform, and that most if not all persons have said or done things they later regretted. We learn from our mistakes, after all, and the slate should be "wiped clean", so to speak, allowing for a fresh start with full trust earned by demonstrated contribs.

12. If this RfA is successful, do you intend to add yourself to CAT:AOR?

A: I feel that if an admin loses the confidence of the community, he should step down. And, of course, any admin can be desysopped. So I will add myself to AOR if successful.


General comments[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/JGHowes before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Note: I think his question refers to the pic on his userpage. Wizardman 22:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent sleuthing! Clearly not a typo then. I suppose with some manner of autopilot, he could conceivably edit Wikipedia whilst flying an airplane... if his Cessna is Internet-enabled, that is. –xeno (talk) 22:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Well, the question at least makes sense then :) Okiefromokla questions? 01:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, ha! It's not flying in an airplane, I totally misread the question. When I'm editing at work I only have time for a quick check-in here and there, which is where I was when I saw this RFA be transcluded. Still haven't had time to go over his contribs (I've been studying for a Final Exam since I got off work, so I'll chime in later. For now, consider me a de facto support. Or is it de jure? I don't know my Latin very well. Useight (talk) 05:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's de jure, as you are, officially and on the record, supporting the candidate. :) Lazulilasher (talk) 12:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I urge the candidate not to answer this question. It is phrased in such a way that poisons the well and it contains a rather large assumption of bad faith. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 03:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't stalk me, Ice Cold Beer. The proposed admin can answer anyway he wants. He can say he wants a fixed term or he can say he wants to be administrator until he dies. Neither is a crime. Presumptive (talk) 04:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...or he can exercise his right to not answer your question - not a crime either. As you say, he can answer in anyway he wants - even if that's with no answer. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Refusal to answer a question on a RFA is a bad sign of things to come. An admin should be goodwill ambassadors of Wikipedia, not rude people who refuse to answer a question. Presumptive (talk) 05:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually no, that's for questions that deserve an answer - questions asked in order to further presumptions is something that could qualify as trolling, and fortunately, the community as a whole is not presumptive in expecting answers for such questions. Candidates are not expected to make up their mind on such matters, particularly in the absence of being an administrator for any length of time. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies to the candidate for bringing an outside dispute into this RfA. It was never my intention to do so. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The question does say 'Optional questions from Presumptive', which suggests to me that not answering is a valid option. Olaf Davis | Talk 17:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support[edit]
  1. Support as co-nom. Wizardman 16:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong Support Excellent candidate. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 16:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Wow. Great article work, very trustworthy, mature editor, see no reason he would abuse the tools. LittleMountain5 review! 16:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Weak Support - I feel disappointed seeing 'Requests for' in the header.  Asenine  16:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Added 'weak' per response to Q6.  Asenine  07:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support as nom. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support, excellent article contribs, low on the drama scale as well. I am just a little creeped out by the three similar signatures (candidate and both nominators). Weirdness. ;) Keeper ǀ 76 17:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - basically meets my standards. Bearian (talk) 17:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Wow, excellent article contributions -- much congratulations for that work! Everything seems excellent and I wish you continued success. Lazulilasher (talk) 17:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Co-nom by a b'crat? More article work in a day than what I've done in my life? Mediation? Gnome work? There's nothing not to like! Paragon12321 17:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. Spent about fifteen minutes going over your contributions, and while nothing jumps out at me as amazing, I didn't find anything I'd consider a major issue. I'm confident in your ability to communicate with other editors, and I trust you won't do anything too stupid as an admin. Since you don't have terribly many edits (from what I saw) to the areas you want to work in, I suggest easing into them. If you ever need any advice, I'm happy to help or point you at someone who can (or be entirely clueless). lifebaka++ 17:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. Seems sound to me. -- Mentisock 17:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. - What I'm looking for. — Realist2 17:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. - A reliable candidate. AVandtalkcontribs 18:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. As noted, JGHowes is a good candidate, and I am impressed with the mainspace work I'm seeing. I concur that it'd be a good idea to tread lightly in the admin areas you're unfamiliar with, but I trust this candidate to exercise the appropriate caution. No worries. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 18:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support — Almost "weak" because of a technicality on Q4, but I just couldn't do it. The candidate is experienced, knowledgeable, and an excellent content contributor. I see a plethora of good things in his contribs, and nothing too questionable. Just take note that you shouldn't decline the unblock request of a user you blocked, although I'm not sure you understood that you were supposed to be the blocking admin in that scenario. In any case, now you know. Don't be too unwilling to use the 2nd chance template either. Okiefromokla questions? 18:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support there were some areas where I wish you had a little more experience, but not enough so that I would oppose or even go weak. Solid contributions and respect of the community.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 19:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support I went through some stuff, but nothing but positive things stick out. I think nothing bad will come of this SoWhy review me! 19:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Have seen this editor around doing good work, and trust him with the tools. --Rodhullandemu 20:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Per: MBisanz talk 20:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support most definitely. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support I have seen some great work at the Scouting WikiProject, and was unaware until now of the great depth of contributions JGHowes has done. Great demeanor and attitude. Willing to upgrade to Super Strong Support in exchange for a really good Blue Comet article that isn't about the Sopranos. Jim Miller See me | Touch me | Review me 22:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. Per Wizardman (talk · contribs)/Rlevse (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 22:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support A broad track record of creating and improving articles, accompanied by broad-minded participation at XfD. Alansohn (talk) 22:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Naturally. — Jojo • Talk • 22:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Tiptoety talk 22:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support due to constructive contributions indicated on candidate's userpage. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Indeed. Wisdom89 (T / C) 00:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. I see nothing wrong here. Malinaccier (talk) 01:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. Candidate looks good to me. —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 01:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support great user. —αἰτίας •discussion• 01:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. A good editor, who knows the issues and will react calmly to problems. He will make a good admin. --Bduke (talk) 02:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. JGHowes will be a competent and effective administrator, and can be trusted. Good luck, Anthøny 02:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support —Seems to be a fine candidate. I see no reason to fear any tool misuse, which should be the most pressing concern (+sysop is no big deal, afterall). Parsecboy (talk) 02:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Looks fine. GlassCobra 03:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support--LAAFan 03:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. Excellent editor, will make a fine admin. Dreadstar † 04:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. Top-flight nominee. — Athaenara ✉ 06:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Why not. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 07:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. Yes. nancy talk 07:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Yes, although i dont really feel safe in your small Cessna 310 - care to upgrade to say a 747 or an A380;)? Monster Under Your Bed (talk) 12:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Strong nomination statements, good answers, good contribs, good luck. --Dweller (talk) 13:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support No reason not to. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Wikipedia should not be edited while flying an airplane. Keepscases (talk) 14:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support per Julian. Sceptre (talk) 15:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support - I like what I see. Lradrama 16:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support No reason for concern. Well-rounded editor and above average content writer, the project would only benefit from candidate's access to extra buttons. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support Looks good to me. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. JGHowes has all the right qualities. Axl (talk) 17:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 18:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support - Answer his questions perfectly even the hard ones! My Account (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support — Doesn't look like someone who would misuse the rights. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 19:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. A little late chiming in on this one, but he's a solid contributor, plenty of mainspace work. Good experience in the project space as well. Looks good. Useight (talk) 19:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Wikipedia could always use more admins who are article-writers at heart. Allthedamnnamesaretaken (talk) 19:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support-- Article writers are always a bonus. : ) --Cameron* 20:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support - Looks like he'll be a good admin, and per the odd opposes below. Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 22:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. Fully qualified candidate, no concerns. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support - per NYB. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Dlohcierekim 06:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. NYB? Huh? Anyway, great candidate, thumbs up. --Meldshal42? 11:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant this NYB. ;) Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support - why not? --T-rex 13:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support Have not found anything in the candidate's history that would make me believe that it would be a mistake to give them the tools. Good luck! --Winger84 (talk) 16:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Strong Support Six FA's, 6 GA's, 12 DYK's? Of course! Also per follow-up to Q6 and WP:WTHN. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 18:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support. Normally when there's no opposition and plenty of support before I arrive, I don't bother to comment. However, in this case, I make an exception. JGHowes has the makings of my favorite type of administrator: the writing admin. Of course, there's the usual reasoning as well, with which JGH perfectly aligns, so this is an easy support. S.D.Jameson 19:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support per the answer given to #6, and per his good contributions to the encyclopedia. macy (talk) 20:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support Answers to questions are fantastic. My fence sitting ended when your userboxes (particularly the 2nd and 3rd column) came and pushed me off.--KojiDude (C) 22:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support fine 'pedia builder., and minimal drama Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support John254 04:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support Bottom line: I trust this guy with the admin tools. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 11:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support - the candidate has done good content work. « Diligent Terrier [talk] 20:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Strong support per nom and Q4. Q7 made me smile, though. :-) Cosmic Latte (talk) 00:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support Loved answer to Q7. Good luck. America69 (talk) 01:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support per Kurt Weber. Steven Walling (talk) 04:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Strong support JGHowes has 6 FAs, 6 GAs, 12 DYKs, and more than 5,000 mainspace edits. I really appreciate his contributions. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 06:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support - everything looks good here. :)   jj137 (talk) 20:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support Not really necessary to pile on at this point, but I've been particularly impressed with JGHowes thoughtful and reasoned approach to dealing with Wikipedia. Shell babelfish 20:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support due to constructive contributions indicated on candidate's history. --Kaaveh (talk) 00:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support The fact he's written 6 GAs, 6 FAs, and 12 DYKs is enough for me to support. how do you turn this on 00:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support Good answers to the questions. I don't think candiate will abuse the mop. Whispering 05:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support. See no issues here, and it's good to have a few more article creators as admins. Jayjg (talk) 01:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Strong Support. Intelligent, level-headed contributor. An asset to the community. jeremycec 14:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Good user. Acalamari 15:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support - I see no problems here, you have my support. Steve Crossin Contact/24 15:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose per answer to #6...individual clearly puts so-called "policy" (which is in fact totally non-prescriptive and non-binding) ahead of his own best judgment. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 14:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't that a good thing? I mean, if it weren't for policies preventing it, you'd probably have been indef blocked a long time ago. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We accept support votes without any comment, no matter how little thought or justification is offered. While I disagree with the explanation offered for opposing here, the reason seems no less logical than many of the supports. The response offered here, which seems unlikely to change Kmweber's mind, seems inappropriate if not questionably uncivil in its second sentence. I can assure you that this RfA will pass, even with the one negative vote; why can't we try to accept the fact that there are people who disagree with us, even when we are sure they're wrong. Alansohn (talk) 16:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been away from Wikipedia for a little while recently, and I come back and I find people are still getting worked-up over this heavily outdated subject matter? Lradrama 16:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not worked up about anything. Simply making a comment. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Alansohn, please keep in mind that RfA's are meant to be discussions. If you have a problem with the reasoning of a support, you should question it just as others have questioned this oppose. - auburnpilot's sock 23:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what may be meant, but that's not what happens in practice. Alansohn (talk) 04:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's because in the nomination statement, the supporters already have a ready-made rationale as to why this candidate is suitable. It's perfectly fine to simply mark one's agreement with the nomination by simply signing in the support section. In short: The default is to support. If on the other hand you disagree with the nomination, you should explain your reasons and how they outweigh the positive aspects highlighted in the nomination to the point that you feel compelled to oppose. Questioning opposes more regularly than supports also is fine for the simple reason that at a minimum ratio to succeed of ~75% supports, the individual oppose weighs considerably more than the individual support. user:Everyme 10:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct. You can bet that if negative votes in real elections were worth 3 affirmatives, there would be far more scrutiny of the detractors' reasoning. —Animum (talk) 22:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Real elections where the results are 62-1 and those in the minority voting oppose are still getting what is frequently negative -- if not uncivil -- scrutiny is hardly the mark of a democratic system, real or otherwise. Albania was hardly any better. Cuba has a system that too often has a tendency to treat any difference of opinion as dissent that needs to be suppressed, not exactly a model of consensus-based community building. Alansohn (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Aye, catching me in the fine print, eh? ;-) Pragmatic examples aside, I'm saying that opposes are worth a not-inconsiderable amount more than supports are, so they inherently lend themselves to more scrutiny, but opposes on sure-to-pass RfAs don't need to be challenged as they don't matter. That's not to say, however, that opposers cannot challenge the supporters, for that defeats the purpose of discussion, something at which AuburnPilot hinted above. —Animum (talk) 00:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that the Vatican has eliminated the position of Devil's advocate from the beatification process as part of its recent downsizing, perhaps we can create an equivalent position here on Wikipedia. For each nomination, with its gushingly over-the-top description of why the candidate should receive the position in question, there should be an equal and opposite response as to why the individual in question is undeserving. This would allow those unsatisfied to simply vote "Oppose, per anti-nom". Though in this case, I still support the nomination. Alansohn (talk) 00:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We could also give every candidate 50 or so phantom !votes at a ratio of, say, 37-13 (=74% support), to reduce the weight of each actual !vote. But that's talking about RfA reform, and it's never going to happen. Because the process is working perfectly fine... user:Everyme 14:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Seems another WP policy drone, so I oppose. DollyD (talk) 10:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well why don't you get to know the candidate and then decide whether to turn the "Seems" into an "is"? ScarianCall me Pat! 19:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To avoid getting flamed for breaching the santicity of WP:NPA, probably. Badger Drink (talk) 20:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Weak oppose - I take issue with an administrator using their real-life name or a clear derivative thereof as a username. Badger Drink (talk) 20:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think I've ever heard that one before. Thank you could explain your rationale? « Diligent Terrier [talk] 20:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To be brief (or attempt to be, at least) - administrators have a higher possibility of becoming targets by stalkers, or ending up immersed in drama which may reflect poorly upon them in a Google search. A lot of worry has been had over this, with some wanting to automatically <noindex> RfAs. Problem with that is that the MediaWiki search engine is, to put it mildly, less-than-stellar, and oftentimes a Google search is a much better way of finding an RfA for a candidate whose username you're unsure of, but the details of which you remember. Drama-issues aside, to use one's real name on a website of Wikipedia's visibility shows a rather startling amount of good-faith for the general online population - an amount which might even be considered veering into naivety. As an aside, I'd also like to mention that beyond this issue, this candidate seems a fine potential admin - I guess I'd liken it to a candidate with 5 FAs, 10 GAs, a whole host of sterling AN/I, AIV, and AfD work, but whose understanding of free-image criteria leaves a little to be desired. Or something. So much for "brief" - I hope this sheds some light, somewhere or other. Badger Drink (talk) 20:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Off the top of my head, User:Daniel Case and more recently User:Steven Fruitsmaak are both wonderful admins whose usernames have not impaired their ability to do what admins do. User:WJBscribe is a crat and chair of MedCom and is open about his real name, User:Daniel is acting as chair in his absence. There are countless others as well (don't kill me if I left you off). I don't see why that would warrant an oppose from you. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 20:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    How desperate are you to find a reason to oppose? Honestly, this is probably the single worst rationale I've ever seen at RfA in my life.--KojiDude (C) 20:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    How desperate are you to live in a world where everybody thinks just like you? Yours was probably the bitchiest oppose-badgerer I've seen in months. Badger Drink (talk) 20:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Bananna Hammoc.--KojiDude (C) 21:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fatality. =( Badger Drink (talk) 23:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I concur. This oppose is by far one of the worst I've seen. Pure unadulterated fishing-for-a-reason-to-oppose. What exactly is the point of opposing what is obviously going to be a successful RfA with an extremely hair-splitting rationale? Wisdom89 (T / C) 22:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Last I checked, there was a big link at the top of these things that said, "voice your opinion". I voiced mine. If you want to change it to "voice your opinion, unless it's obviously going to be a successful / unsucccessful RfA", be my guest. Unless you're too busy casting strong support on RfA's like this. Badger Drink (talk) 23:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All - I think we're edging a little close to incivility, folks... can we have a cup of coffee and agree to disagree? Badger Drink's oppose is a valid one, though I note that the argument might be more with policy than with this particular candidate. Be that as it may, I'd recommend that we take any further discussion to the talk page - it's getting a bit heated up in here. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 03:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries. I think Wisdom and I already made a telepathic pact to stop posting here for that very reason.--KojiDude (C) 03:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
I take issue with one point in A4 - I cannot envision a scenario where I...would unblock or undo another admin's actions without first consulting with that admin to make sure he or she was in complete agreement. This defeats the purpose of unblock templates and getting another admin to review and decide for themselves. Occasionally, clarification from that admin may be needed, or more community input might be needed, but the substantive issue outweighs this formality - I cannot support when the candidate misses that priority. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please note, I did qualify that as a neophyte admin, that is to say, newly handed the mop, I would tread lightly before going around unblocking, etc., and defer to more experienced admins. As more experience is acquired, I would certainly do my best to carefully evaluate unblock requests. JGHowes talk - 01:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Noted - apologies, as I should've clarified that first before voting. There's no issue if it's just for that orientation period, as I call it. If your last sentence (in effect) means that after that period, you'll look at the merits of the unblock request and make the call for yourself, rather than waiting for the blocking admin to agree completely, then I have no issues. (Of course, this does not preclude those occasions where (1) you'd let the blocking admin know of your decision or (2) need clarification on their initial block or (3) need more input from the community.) Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely, thanks for letting me clarify that. JGHowes talk - 12:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral per Q4. I would advise the candidate to consider offering a ((2nd chance)) template to IP/users who claim they want to contribute constructively and unblock if they respond well to it. Vandals are a dime a dozen and re-blocks are cheap...constructive contributors are golden. –xeno (talk) 13:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought he answered the question really well... am I missing something? Wizardman 14:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, to the candidate's credit, he may have misunderstood the scenario (part of the reason I went neutral instead of oppose). You are actually supposed to put yourself in the shoes of the blocking admin, his question seems to address the actions of a neophyte admin reviewing the unblock template. Nevertheless, he said he would let the 1-week block stand. I would like to see a willingness to engage the blocked user in discourse, offering a 2nd chance either verbally or in template form and unblocking if they respond well to it. No need to let the 1 week block stand if they want to constructively contribute right away - that would be unnecessarily punitive. Also, if they return to vandalism, reblocking takes but a minute. –xeno (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. Well, I guess you'd oppose me if I were to run for RfA again then, heh. Wizardman 22:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Category