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

JPD[edit]

Voice your opinion! Ended 12:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

JPD (talk · contribs) – JPD is from Sydney, Australia, but is currently operating from London and contributes mainly to cricket, Sydney and Sydney Swans (football) related matter.

JPD's list of major article contributions, which was verified to be true by looking through his contribution log, shows a diverse range of article editing that he has done notable contributions in AFL such as the Fitzroy Football Club, Barry Hall, flag articles such as the Royal Australian Air Force Ensign, geographical articles such as Parliament House, Sydney, political biography such as Carlo Lazzarini and pure mathematics such as Representation of a Hopf algebra.

For followers of the 1FA principle, he contributed heavily to Flag of Australia (mainly the January 2006 history).

He also helps with gnoming, such as wikification, disambiguating, fixing redundant cats or replacing supercats with subcats, etc, as well as helping to to insert LGA infoboxes to many Sydney LGA articles ([1]).

The main pillar of encyclopedic integrity is the maintenance of NPOV and one of the most important characteristics of an administrator is to set a good example of NPOV for users. JPD does this quite a lot, most notably in combatting the "tourist-brochure" syndrome which affects many city articles such as Melbourne ([2], ) and most notably Sydney, ([3], [4], [5] [6]), where he kept a calm head despite the persistent and disruptive marketing style editing by the now-banned User:Jackp. He also keeps a close eye on removing aspersions, hagiography, advertising, and weasel words from articles ([7], [8], [9], [10])

His extensive presence at talk pages such as Talk:Westies (people) - ([11], [12], [13]) steering off-topic debate ([14], [15]) and mathematics ([16]). He keeps a close eye on Sydney and Australia, as evidenced by the ample discussion on the accompanying talk pages, especially attempting to reason with Jackp. his polite, and logical debate throughout shows an ability to withstand the heat and red herrings to which an admin is often subjected. He also communicates well with other users ([17], [18], [19], [20]) and does not engage in edit-warring or disruption.

He is also active in helping at Australian Noticeboard in discussions to coordinate and help standardise material ([21], [22], [23]), and has an understanding of how to resolved disputes ([24]).

JPD contributes regularly to reverting vandalous and nonsense posts, warning the user appropriately, as well as removing linkspam ([25]).

He has a strong understanding of the image policy, in particular the fair use policy, which appears to be a big problem with many wrongly used fair use images ([26], [27], [28]).

JPD is active at AfD, and his interest in thorough debating, as exhibited at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Davis (footballer), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cricket Ratings/Ranking and also ([29], [30],

JPD also has a very thorough usage of comprehensive edit summaries, allowing others to see what he has written and follow the historical development of articles. His email is enabled. His userpage and signature are in order.

I am honoured to recommend JPD to the community for for administrator status.Blnguyen | rant-line 09:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept Blnguyen's flattering nomination. JPD (talk) 12:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate

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

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I like to do different things from time to time, so would probably pay a lot of attention to which backlogs most need clearing. I particularly anticipate dealing with deletions, especially speedies, but also AfD and images without copyright questions. I would continue to revert vandalism, and would definitely appreciate the rollback button. Admin tools would also help when dealing with banned users and other persistent vandals.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Blnguyen has already mentioned most of my better contributions, so I will mention here what I like about some of them. I was particularly pleased to contribute to Flag of Australia, which was an enjoyable experience, and I feel a fine example of how collaboration can work very well. I like to think that at Representation of a Hopf algebra I made the point of the original article clearer and easier to read for some at least. I have also been pleased with some of my more individual efforts at Bob Skilton, Carlo Lazzarini and Parliament House, Sydney.
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: I have been involved with conflicts with (now) banned users such as User:Jackp and sockpuppets of User:Pnatt. Before they were banned or I realised they were sockpuppets, I have tried to engage in discussion and explain why their edits have been reverted by myself or others. I acted similarly with User:Felix Portier who was adding a lot of doubtful unsourced material, and even in disagreements with clearly constructive editors such as User:WikiCats (Template talk:Sydney regions, as well as Westies mentioned by Blnguyen) and User:Rarelibra (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries and user talk), I have tried to emphasise discussing the relevant issues and gaining consensus. I have been slightly upset by some of the suggestions these users have made about my motivations, but I feel the best way to deal with this, as other things, is to continue talking, focussing on issues relevant to the article.
4. How would you deal with a long term group trouble users, blocked temporarily on several occasion for 3RR/NPA, who manage to flame, "tag team" revert war, and add unsourced original research to pages just enough to avoid any instant indefinite blocks? Would you seek an RfC, RfAr, or AN/I as the first step?Voice-of-All 22:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: In my experience, I tend to be more patient with these sort of users than some, continuing to attempt to discuss the issues. I don't see this as a good thing or a bad thing (except that it is good to have people with different approaches), but it does mean that I am less likely to be the one iniating RfCs, etc. I can't see RfAr being the first step. Other than that, it would depend on the specifics. RfC is the obvious thing to do when the users are engaging in discussion. Without discussion, I would suggest they probably do deserve an instant indefinite block, which I would want to confirm at AN/I.
5. Given the above, if an admin who edited the article blocked one of these users, could that ever be considered appropriate, or should only unrelated admins block? Would you consider that serious administrator abuse?Voice-of-All 22:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: Of course it is ideal that an uninvolved admin should block. In the case described above, this is probably necessary. However, I would not be bothered by an admin who blocking on a clear violation of policy, or with the support of the community, no matter how involved they were.
Optional question (from Asterion)
  1. You mentioned above that you will help out with admin backlogs, would you consider working on WP:RQM? I know this is not one of the most attractive areas but it is usually backlogged. Regards, E Asterion u talking to me? 12:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    A: Yes, I would consider it one of the backlogs to help with. JPD (talk) 14:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Final: (94/1/0)
Support
  1. Pre-emptive Strong Support.Blnguyen | rant-line 09:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support I've long considered JPD an exemplary Wikipedian and have had plans to nominate him for adminship for quite some time. Although I've dipped out on that honour, Blnguyen has done the task justice, comprehensively outlining why JPD ought to be given the mop. He has sound knowledge of policy, excellent communication skills and he never loses perspective. Long overdue.--cj | talk 09:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. An excellent candidate who has been around since May 2005 and contributed solidly throughout the project. JPD has a level head and I'm certain he'll be a great administrator. -- I@n 09:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support --Terence Ong (T | C) 12:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong Support --Srikeit (Talk | Email) 13:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Seems like a good candidate.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  13:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support per well-written nom. More like this one, please! Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 13:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support per nom. Michael 13:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support per nom. Rama's arrow 14:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support great Aussie editor, per nominator. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 14:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Excellent editor. michael talk 15:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Excellent, trustworthy editor. Xoloz 17:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Strong Support per nom. Stubbleboy 18:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support --Alex talk here 18:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Cursory glance at contribs and reading talk page lead me to believe JPD is ready for adminship. :) Dlohcierekim 18:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support per nom. Have always appreciated his thoughtful comments on talk pages. Skeezix1000 19:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support per nom. —Khoikhoi 20:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. Another ridiculous nomination statement. Another quality candidate. When you're promoted, remember that websites are never CSD A7. - CrazyRussian talk/email 20:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support per nom and all of above. Quality user making contributions in several areas, no concerns. Newyorkbrad 22:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Good contributions to sports including cricket. Updates cricket related articles frequently. eg: darrell hair, pakistan tour to england 2006 --Ageo020 00:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Historical Support per nom -- Lost(talk) 02:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support I can't find reasons to oppose. A great editor. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support per above. Michael 02:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    One per customer, please!TM - CrazyRussian talk/email 05:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Has a good overall knowledge of editing. --WikiCats 03:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - per nom and clean upload log --T-rex 03:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Arnzy (talk • contribs) 05:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Will be a wise mopper. Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 05:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support per nom --Guinnog 08:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support'. - Mailer Diablo 12:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support per nom. --Nearly Headless Nick 13:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Merovingian - Talk 14:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support per nom, above, etc. —Jared Hunt August 30, 2006, 15:42 (UTC)
  32. Support You want Spic and Span to go with that mop? JungleCat talk/contrib 15:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support per all of the above. --Nishkid64 16:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support per answers and contribs.Voice-of-All 18:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. Very trustworthy; answers to questions are more than satisfactory! Srose (talk) 19:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Good candidate. Tyrenius 21:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support seems to be very well-rounded and well-versed in many areas of Wikipedia. It seems as if he's certainly to be trusted and will do good work on the administrative front. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 23:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Good history, good perspective. I believe he would make a good admin. --Improv 02:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support I have no doubts he would make an excellent admin. Have seen his work, esp around Australian related articles. Thumbs up from me. Rafy 03:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support, great editor, very civil and experienced--TBCTaLk?!? 03:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support per TBC. Mostly Rainy 04:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support, no reasons to oppose. Per all above -- Legolost EVIL, EVIL! 05:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support without reservation. I've seen the user around a lot and everything I've seen has impressed me favorably. Clearly understands both policy and article-writing, will make an excellent admin --- Deville (Talk) 05:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support, this user is very active, and just as importantly, is very civil, based on my running across him, such as in AfD discussions. Seems that he would be an excellent admin. --Kinu t/c 05:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support, that glowing nomination won me over completely :) Great answers to questions, appears to be sensible and level-headed. — riana_dzasta wreak havoc|damage report 06:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support No hesitation as he has been very polite in the occasions where we have been in contact and has a good record of watching pages which are also on my watchlist. Ansell 08:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  47. Support Arktos talk 10:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support --Jay(Reply) 17:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support appears to be contributor with a good variety of experience.-- danntm T C 17:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. — FireFox (talk) 17:47, 31 August 2006
  51. Support ~ trialsanderrors 17:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. - Bobet 20:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. I don't see why not. -- Selmo (talk) 22:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support as it appears from Philosophus' userpage that he is no longer participating on Wikipedia, my request for more information was made two days ago, and my own checks have turned up nothing to object to, I will certainly support this nomination. User is a solid editor, and I feel we need more Admins from Down Under anyway, as so many of us are off-line when things need fixing. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support strong candidate. -- Samir धर्म 01:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support Tintin (talk) 05:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support Oppose vote is uncompelling. Ya ya ya ya ya ya 05:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support Bugtrio 06:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support --Ugur Basak 08:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Red and white support. --bainer (talk) 08:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support This user has had enough experience and edits to become an administrator. I trust you will fulfil your role admirably. -- Casmith 789 12:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support -- Shanel 14:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually added by SheneI (note the e and the uppercase i), now blocked indef. --Rory096 01:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Strong per nom. _Doctor Bruno__Talk_/E Mail 18:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support - perfect nomination. NCurse work 20:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support. Heck yes. — Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 20:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support. Thunderbrand 23:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support. per above...I trust Blnguyen's judgment. alphaChimp laudare 06:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support per all above. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 08:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support. Impressive range of contributions and a very impressive nomination summary. Carcharoth 10:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support -- I have no reason to expect anything other than worthwhile admin activity from this user. - Longhair 11:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support. G.He 16:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support per nom. -- Ianblair23 (talk) 16:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support per nom. RedZebra 16:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support.  Grue  17:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support per above. --Húsönd 18:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. SupportThere are currently 860 administrators, 47,287,109 users and 6,815,296 articles on Wikipedia as of Monday, April 22, 2024. JPD will make that 860 + 1 when this RfA closes. Williamborg (Bill) 20:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support, 'cause I'm all spineless and such. Look at all those smiling, happy people above me - how could I resist that? ;) Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 01:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support per nom. Also, the oppose vote hardly seems to be a good reason not to approve JPD for adminship. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 01:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support per nom. VegaDark 03:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support per nom and answers.-- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK 06:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support. Will make a good admin. Zaxem 08:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support, of course. Sango123 17:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support - Per excellent nom and nice answers to question. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 18:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support well-rounded and highly civil contributor, clearly fit for adminship. As a slightly off-topic aside, kudos to Blnguyen for writing one of the most persuasive and comprehensive admin nominations I've ever seen. Great work. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Jaranda wat's sup 02:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support I'm convinced and believe that this adminship will be a good thing for Wikipedia. Yanksox 04:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support A good user! Jam01 10:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support. DarthVader 12:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support--E Asterion u talking to me? 16:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support - pile on. - Richardcavell 01:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Back from holidays pile on support -- Tawker 04:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Even though I don't Like Australian Wine Support Teke (talk) 04:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support - better late than never. Kukini 04:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support Fine candidate. Marskell 09:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support as a strong a trustworthy administrator candidate - Peripitus (Talk) 12:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose. Overuses warning templates when taking a few more seconds to write relevant warnings would be more effective and courteous. --Philosophus T 19:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Note to closing bureaucrat this user has left Wikipedia per here. Thanks. Stubbleboy 03:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC) NB. "This user" refers to Philosophus, not to the candidate for admin. Carcharoth 10:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC) [reply]
    • So what?  Grue  17:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are you talking to Stubbleboy or me? Carcharoth 00:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just weighing in here. I would imagine that if a user leaves Wikipedia, that their opinion as a matter of consensus does not matter. Consensus has to do with the community, not those outside of it. Making the choice to leave, IMHO, means that you've rejected the community. But my opinion here matters not. The point I think is that JPD has unanimous support except for a single opposition vote from a user that isn't even a stated member of Wikipedia anymore. That speaks volumes to JPD. -- RM 01:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • What about short-term blocked, and banned (indefinitely blocked) users? Are their votes discounted as well? Or rather, to move away from numbers, would the closing bureaucrat be more likely to discount their views? Carcharoth 02:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm not sure about short-term blocked, but at least in the case of banned users or those who have otherwise left semi-permanently (nothing is really permanent on Wikipedia), I would *expect* their "votes" to be given less or no weight, especially if there concerns were unique. But of course broad generalizations are hard to make, and it would be up to the closing bureaucrat to make that judgement call. And again, this is just my opinion, but if a user violates the trust of the community, I don't think that they deserve to be treated equally. We reject meatpuppets who are clearly not in the interest of the community. Also, imagine if some organization made a concerted effort to recruit a hundred users who contributed legitimatly for, say, 400 edits, before being used to "take control" of the voting here. How seriously should their votes be taken? To get back to my main point, whether or not this vote "counts" or not, as far as I am concerned, this vote has the unanimous consensus of the community. -- RM 12:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
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