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

Ale jrb[edit]

Final (talk page) (60/0/2); Ended Tue, 14 Oct 2008 19:52:43 (UTC)

Ale jrb (talk · contribs) - I first met Ale jrb a few months ago while on Huggle. I was very impressed by his accuracy, since at that time Huggle was still in a rather early stage in its development, and it was much more difficult to use then than it is now. Since then, Ale jrb has continued to maintain a practically flawless record with his reverts. I would also like to point out his even temperament and civility. When people ask him why he reverted their edits, his replies are always civil and helpful, as evidenced by his talk page archives.

In addition to his anti-vandal work, Ale jrb also finds time to write some. He maintains a list of significant contributions here and I would encourage you to take a look at it. Here is a user who is not only an excellent vandal-fighter, but he also understands how difficult it can be to write good articles, and, per the initial failure and later success of Artemis Fowl's GAN, he has the perseverance to keep trying when he wants to do something, even if he was unsuccessful to begin with.

In the past few weeks, I have more and more frequently noticed a shortage of administrators on vandal-patrol. Ale jrb is active in this area and he has a clear need for the tools, with more that 500 reports to AIV, as well as myriad CSD tags. On the subject of CSD tagging, Ale jrb has not had a CSD tag declined (link is admin-only, sorry...) since February 9, 2008. (The bluelinks in the list after that date were either recreated after his original tag was accepted, or someone turned the page he tagged into a redirect.)

To summarize, Ale jrb is a user who primarily focuses on vandal fighting, but at the same time, he knows what it takes to start and improve articles. Coupled with his civility and helpfulness, I think Ale jrb will be a fine admin. J.delanoygabsadds 20:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept Ale_Jrbtalk 21:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: At least early on, I suspect that the majority of my admin-related tasks will involve those areas that I am most familiar with - WP:AIV and WP:CSD. I have significant experience with these, with around 750 deleted contribs and a few hundred AIV reports. What's more, I quite regularly see backlogs in these areas (well, CSD moreso), and would be pleased to help reduce these, rather than adding to them!
If I choose to branch out, it will probably be towards WP:UAA, as this is quite similar to the aforementioned areas and I have a little experience with it. I don't really intend to be very active in XfD, as I haven't been until now, but I guess it is possible this will change in the far future. Ale_Jrbtalk 21:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I'd say the contribution I'm most proud of is my work on the Artemis Fowl (novel) article, which I took from stub up to GA standard. I'm not an amazing article writer, so I was very happy when it passed the GAN, after a quite substantial amount of work, if I say so myself :P. I'm currently editing Sir Thursday which has improved somewhat since I began (in my opinion), but still has a long way to go. I'm quite pleased with it so far, though, and watch it in the future!
I'm also pleased with my work on the VandalProof anti-vandalism tool, for which I was basically the sole developer between it's original developer opening the project and the introduction of huggle. That leads me on to my anti-vandalism work, which I can't really leave unsaid. I have lots of vandalism reversions, quite a few AIV reports, and lots of CSD taggings. Vandalism is a blight on Wikipedia, and I am proud to help get rid of it. Ale_Jrbtalk 21:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 don't think I've been in any significant conflicts on Wikipedia. I have, however, dealt with lots of users who are upset that I've tagged their page for deletion. Several of these don't really understand why their article doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion, and make their first comment angry or upset, and I help them by explaining the problem, and giving advice on what to do. Of course, some users just come to vent, and these I tend to ignore. I don't imagine myself handling situations like this very differently as an admin - it's simply a question of explaining what the problem is, and helping the user fix it. Ale_Jrbtalk 21:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from user:zzuuzz
4:: You certainly seem to find the trash in the new pages. Can you provide examples of new pages which could have qualified for CSD but you actually chose to improve instead?
A: Unfortunately, I'd say that the vast majority of pages I tag for deletion are either blatant vandalism, where there's no hope of an article being created, or complete lack of notability, which is about the same. Recently while patrolling (well, 2 days ago, but before nomination), I turned this page from a vandal-tagged page into a redirect, because I feel it could be useful there, and I will occasionally take action like this.
However, when it comes to writing articles, which I find more difficult, I prefer to choose one that I know about, and these aren't usually found in newpages. Hope that answers your question. Ale_Jrbtalk 07:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Blooded Edge
5:: As an administrator, you will most probably come across rash users/IPs, who will not take kindly to reversions by yourself, for whatever the reason. Indeed, you may already have been in such situations before. I wanted to know what exactly your personal stance is on the cool down block. Wikipedia generally discourages admins from taking this course of action, due to the belief it only inflames the situation. However, there is still the small chance that the subject will indeed take the oppurtunity to review his/her actions, and may change his/her way of acting to something more appropriate. Assuming that Wikipedia had no clear policy on this, would you use such a block? Or wait until the IP/User simply becomes too irksome to ignore?
I generally disagree with the idea, because I think it is fundamentally flawed. People act rashly because they are angry or upset, and in the case of Wikipedia, they're angry or upset at either a user or an action, who/which they strongly disagree with. This leads to disruption, WP:POINT issues, and sometimes personal attacks. The reasoning behind a cool-down block is that the user won't be able to edit for a bit, so will calm down. In my opinion, however, if something has made someone sufficiently angry to edit without thinking, being unable to edit so they can 'cool-down' will just make them worse - they'll see it as even more of a 'conspiracy' to stop them from saying what they're annoyed about. I think it's this - which makes them think they're being silenced, rather than 'punished' for breaking a rule (I use the term loosely, as that's not what blocks are for, but in that frame of mind I think that's how a NPA/3RR block would be seen, etc), that caused cool-down block problems. Therefore, in these circumstances, I would almost never use one.
The only time I see it having any effect is with a very experienced contributor, who is clearly furious about something and not thinking at all, where a short block might shock them into thinking that, actually, it's getting serious and they need to calm down. I feel this is different from a cool-down, though, because it's more a message they can't ignore than an actual block. But then, however, blocking an experienced contributor before they need to be blocked by policy, is very dangerous ground, so I probably wouldn't use one there either.
That was quite a long response. To summarise, no, I dislike cool-down blocks, and don't think they're helpful. I would wait until someone needed to be blocked, before lbocking them. Ale_Jrbtalk 19:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks alot for your clear response :). Blooded Edge Sign/Talk 20:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Nom support J.delanoygabsadds 20:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - one of the good non-admin huggle users. Garden. 21:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Good candidate. Sam Blab 21:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I see you a lot at newpages, I was thinking about askign you if you were interested, actually. — Ceranthor [Formerly LordSunday] 21:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support one of the best hugglers. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 22:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Trust the nominator, and no red flags. Good luck, Malinaccier (talk) 22:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. naerii 00:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support - Seems a-ok to me. — neuro(talk) 00:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Good Luck! II MusLiM HyBRiD II 00:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - I don't see any reason to oppose. Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 02:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Beat the Eco Support, I'd like tickets to see the 9 o' clock show...oh wait, wrong place. Guess I might as well support while I'm here. RkMnQ (talk) 02:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Solid. Wisdom89 (T / C) 03:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support--LAAFansign review 03:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Can this user be trusted? Yes, therefore Support. X MarX the Spot (talk) 04:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support rootology (C)(T) 06:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Epbr123 (talk) 08:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Kennytran4 (talk) 08:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support - We need more admins to clear the backlogs at CSD, this user appears very capable. Good luck, Matty (talk) 09:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. · AndonicO Engage. 10:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Satisfactory answers to the questions, and we need more admins. GlassCobra 11:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support 11,000 edits and no blocks is more than enough for my vote. ϢereSpielChequers 12:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Has plenty of experience, no sign of any trouble, and we can use admins at CSD. --Banime (talk) 13:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. Excellent contributions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support per nom. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Per coding skills. MBisanz talk 15:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support I see no reason to oppose, default to support. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Don't see anything worrying. —αἰτίας •discussion• 17:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support, seems fine. Stifle (talk) 18:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Looks good. America69 (talk) 19:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support As per track and cannot find anything to suggest user will misuse tools.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support – I see no reason to oppose. Tcrow777 Talk 00:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support - why not? macy 01:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. Good contributions in multiple areas. I'm not worried about the uneven distribution of edits over time. This is not a paid position! VG ☎ 08:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support - Good candidate. Have seen around. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 10:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Evidently here for all the right reasons, and technical skills add further reassurance. Best wishes. Pedro :  Chat  11:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. Agree with Matty (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 13:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support as A Good Thing. As a couple of users reminded me, even when it's 99% likely someone will get the tools it's still helpful to try and up that a percentage point. Ironholds (talk) 16:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support I think he will maje a great admin.CMJMEM (talk) 17:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support since he has a solid record of tagging pages for speedy deletion. There's no shortage of pages at CAT:CSD. (So why am I voting on an RFA when I could be patrolling new pages? Oops.) --Elkman (Elkspeak) 19:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. Has provided some good answers to the provided questions, I feel no reason to vote against the nominee. Blooded Edge Sign/Talk 20:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support I have encountered you on several occasions and have found you to be smart, bold, and correct in all editing. I trust you with admin tools fully.--Res2216firestar 20:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support A very good candidate. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 02:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support good candidate, A Good Thing; per my RfA criteria Foxy Loxy Pounce! 08:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. One of the developers of VandalProof? No-brainer. Vishnava talk 12:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support, with comments per Ecoleetage and Tikiwont below. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support - nothing amiss as far as I can see. It Is Me Here (talk) 19:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. Sporadic editing is a little concerning, but I have faith that won't be a problem. DiverseMentality(Boo!) 19:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. Excellent, thoughtful editor. AdjustShift (talk) 16:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support Why the hell not, its no big deal.--Theoneintraining (talk) 16:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support, a huggler with good contributions. —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 19:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support Oh, yes. I thought I'd already supported. Great work in a range of activities. Lazulilasher (talk) 21:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support Per nom. - -The Spooky One (talk to me) 00:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support - excellent record, good contributions, diligent editor. Caulde 12:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support Highly respect contributions to Artemis Fowl (novel) as well as in other areas. Understanding+experience+great question answers=Support. IceUnshattered [ t ] 23:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support – Per question 5. Nice, thought out answer. Good contributions also in many areas. Like I always say, you'll do just fine as an administrator. – RyanCross (talk) 23:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support:Moved from neutral eventually...busy times. — Realist2 00:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support --aye. ~ Troy (talk) 00:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support Jdelanoy catches another good one! iMatthew (talk) 00:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support  Frank  |  talk  15:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. Synergy 16:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
Neutral[edit]

Neutral for now: I'm edging to support but I have a few issues. Firstly, your a very sporadic editor, away for months at a time and have only recently come back to the forefront. I would have also liked to have seen more reference/help desk work. Still, there are a lot of positives and you have a great nominator. Hmm.... — Realist2 12:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC) moving to support. — Realist2 00:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Neutral Based on the answer to Q4. I do New Page Patrols, too, and I frequently find wobbly articles that need to be strengthened -- or, at the very least, marked with the various "Wifiky" or "Unreferenced" tags to encourage article enhancement. I am surprised about your claim that you were unable to identify a single new article that warranted your input for enhancement and improvement -- are you making any effort to save new at-risk articles? Or do you see the process as simply an exercise in deletion? Anyone can tag a junk article for deletion, but the real test comes in serious content creation and enhancement. Let's not forget that we are here to build and strengthen content, not just swat away the flies. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey Eco. I looked at Ale jrb's last 50 non-blatant (not G10, G12, or G3) CSD tags, and there was one article that I think could possibly have been salvaged, and that was a very long shot. J.delanoygabsadds 14:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey J., not having access to this data, I cannot comment one way or the other. From my own experience, however, I've come across a good number of supposedly hopeless new articles that were easily saved -- mostly as stubs (nothing wrong with that), but sometimes as larger articles (including three that went to DYK after originally being deleted by admins who insisted their subject matter had no value). Sometimes people assume an article's subject lacks notability without making any effort to confirm if this is the case. I am not opposing this candidate, out of respect for his contributions, but his answer to Q4 gives the impression that he never makes any effort to save articles and I find it difficult to give 100% support for that line of operation. Hope this makes sense. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fine, and I'll admit I'm not the best person to be telling you about his CSD tags, since I tend to lean more toward a deletionist mentality. J.delanoygabsadds 15:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral - As Ecoleetage I find the new page patrol one sided. I don't see may maintence tags or stub labels or one of our nice welcome messages to the newbie behind them that would be preferable over some very fast A1 / tags A3 (I would e.g not have tagged or deleted Horace (tv series) per A3 as it relates to Horace (play) by the same editor). So i think you could raise your head more often and consider what is the best things to do in a given situation. --Tikiwont (talk) 08:57, 10 October 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