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

DLJessup[edit]

Final (46/18/5) ended 21:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

DLJessup (talk · contribs) has been a solid contributor for a year and a half with currently over 11,000 edits. Among other things, he works on political and law related articles and does a lot of our needed cleanup work too. For example, his creation of Wikipedia:Style for U.S. presidential election, yyyy has helped keep the presidential election articles consistent and more free of the POV that would otherwise be prevalent. Much of the organization of the Supreme Court and Circuit Court articles and templates is due to his efforts. He has always been helpful to me and I see his helpful answers on many of the talk pages of articles and their related templates. My only complaint is that I have had to delete some pages for him in the past, he should be doing that himself ;-). DLJessup is a good user, well versed in policy, and with the temperment to be a good admin. NoSeptember 15:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. — DLJessup (talk) 20:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  1. Support The nom and questions lay out a fine case toward the proposition that this user is unlikely to abuse/misuse the admin tools and is likely to use the mop, etc., to benefit the project. Oh, yeah, and I beat the nominator... Joe 21:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support! Holy crow, you're not an admin already? bd2412 T 21:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - you were already on my admins list -- Tawker 21:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Beat Nominator Support. G.He 03:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to Neutral until e-mail is enabled. G.He 01:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User has now enabled email. G.He 03:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support, has a legitimate need for tools and has demonstrated that they'll be used maturely. RandyWang (raves/rants) 21:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support based upon spread of edits and answers to questions below.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  21:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support per above.--digital_me(TalkˑContribs) 22:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Holy-crap-that's-a-lot-of-edits Support. Werdna (talk) 22:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. Responses to questions are compelling: this is not a crusader but a janitor and a fixer of small, broken things. Chances of abuse of tools: remote. Chances of doing good work with them: Strong. Send out to the mop factory forthwith... Just zis Guy you know? 22:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Obvious Support. Fantastic editor. DarthVader 23:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Suppcheekyrt. Thoughtful answers to questions, lots of good editing and civil talking. Clearly to be trusted with the tools. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 23:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Strong Support I just noticed the colloary to question 4, and I am switching to support. I think a good job will be done. Yanksox 23:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Merovingian {T C @} 23:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support, long overdue and well deserved, and the project will be the primary beneficiary. NoSeptember 23:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support per above abakharev 00:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. Thought you were already an admin. I've come across this user many times and see no indication he would misuse the admin tools. --Aude (talk | contribs) 01:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support good answers, good candidate --rogerd 04:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Weak support. I'm inclined to believe that, despite the lack of WP-space edits, having more than 10,000 article edits would make an editor more than sufficiently familiar with policy. I can't say I've ever come across this editor, but we tend to work in very different areas. The answers to the questions are satisfactorily specific for me and so far I have seen nothing wrong about this user. Answers to question one indicate the candidate would use admin tools primarily in areas they would be most familiar with. Great template work as well. So yeah... Weak support. Grandmasterka 05:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Meets my newly-created RfA Criteria. Grandmasterka 19:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support --Terence Ong (talk | contribs | ESP) 08:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support, more candidates like him, please! Phædriel ♥ tell me - 10:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support - solid and helpful contributor. I'm satisfied with his answers to the questions. JoJan 12:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. Good answers to questions.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 14:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support per JoJan. --Shizane 15:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support, superb answers. Despite the low projectspace edits, I can see you're very involved in Wikipedia. Roy A.A. 19:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support A superb user. --Siva1979Talk to me 20:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. No reason not to. —BorgHunter (talk) 03:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. It seems that this user should have received adminship a very long time ago. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support No evidence admin tools will be misused.--MONGO 09:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support; contributions show dedication to writing an encyclopaedia, and I'm sure giving this user adminship is in the continuing best interests of the articles. Aquilina 11:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support; don't see any reason why not. --Delirium 16:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. S't - Yes. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 17:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support courteous, attempts to write an encyclopedia, discusses whenever arguments arise. Sam Vimes 23:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support per Werdna. :-) SushiGeek 00:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support --Jay(Reply) 03:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. Good editor. --tomf688 (talk - email) 14:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. Good editor, and even if I don't agree with everything he said, the answers to the questions were remarkably thoughtful compared to the usual. --Deville (Talk) 16:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Good editor. No reason for concern about the way admin tools will be used. FloNight talk 21:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support seems to be an excellent editor hoopydinkConas tá tú? 02:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. A solid contributor whose answers below show a high level of maturity and intelligence. I cannot think of a reason to oppose. -- I@n ≡ talk 06:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support 10,000+ edits makes up for a lack of WPspace edits in my book. Get some more soon though, ok? -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 19:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Strong support Though nom may not have a comprehensive knowledge of policy, I am convinced that in this case, lack of policy knowledge is not a problem. This user understands that he does not fully understand policy, and unashamedly admits his ignorance in attempting to understand it better. In particular, I refer to this edit to the Village Pump, in which nom says "Am I doing the right thing here or should I have taken other actions?", and to the answer to the last question (Ambuj Saxena's) below, where nom says "When I thought there might be a problem with a speedy delete, I went to project page and double-checked the criteria" and "I erred in the direction of caution". I am convinced that nom would use the same caution as an administrator, and that he would continue being willing to double-check and learn from his mistakes. I strongly urge edit-counters who think his Wikipedia-space edits are too low to consider this rectifying factor. Λυδαcιτγ 14:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support per Audacity. I have looked at DLJessup's contributions (not all 11,000+) and I see no reason to think that he will misuse the tools. What he doen't know, I believe he will brush up on and act prudently. -- DS1953 talk 18:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Would be a great admin. --Siva1979Talk to me 19:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Duplicate support. - Taxman Talk 20:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Weak Support. I started writing an oppose, but changed my mind while writing, and the comments I wrote in that regard are certainly very important: You've got more to learn, I think, in some critical areas. For example, the answer to the question from Drini indicates a willingness to learn and a good attitude about deletion, but also indicates initial unfamiliarity with one of our most recent, most contentious, and most misused article CSD's—as well as with the common practice of referring to CSD's by the template name to invoke that CSD. (E.g. CSD A7 == ((db-bio))). Also note that "not notable" is not a speedy deletion criterion any more than "vanity" is; they're both often confused with "no assertion of notability" (A7) because many articles fit all three. Anyway, despite my concerns, your willingness to learn and to spend the necessary time doing the research needed to do the right thing have, upon reflection, won me over. -- SCZenz 06:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. BlankVerse 10:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Sorry I'm late here. Reasoned, thoughtful, articulate question answers, tries to learn and get to the right answer, not just a vandal fighter. All goo stuff. Happy to support! Look forward to working with you. Please address the valid concerns raised though... learn on the job. ++Lar: t/c 16:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support per above Nevermind2 18:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose, as I would like to see more Wikipedia: edits. ―Linux|erist 00:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment, I hope we haven't come to the point where we insist that a candidate cast a dozen "Delete per nom"'s at AfD every day in order to pad their Wiki space edit count. This candidate's edits seem to be focused on articles that he actually knows something about (example), and includes creating and developing the new MOS page in Wikipedia space mentioned above. A straight editcountitis here boggles the mind :p, but that is just one editor's opinion. NoSeptember 09:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Sadly, the lack of project-space participation does not give me confidence user understands wiki-process. Xoloz 01:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: You know, people can still read and understand wiki-process without editing it, thus the lack of project-space edits. I think over 11,000 edits implies some bit of understanding. Chuck(contrib) 04:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong Oppose per sorely lacking WP: and User talk: edits. My compliments to you on being a great contributor, of course. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per CrazyRussian. With that goes the same acknowledgement of your great contributions. AdamBiswanger1 03:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. Having a low number of projectspace edits is never good, but I think that your answer to the first question, where you state that you would assist with both the articles for deletion and categories for deletion process, seems a bit odd since you rarely ever post at either of those pages.--SomeStranger(t|c) 11:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I just don't see the kind of project experience that I'm looking for. Doesn't meet my admin criteria. --Cyde↔Weys 20:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose per much of above. For someone with over 12,000 edits, I'd like to see more Wikipedia and user talk edits. joturner 21:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose lack of wiki namespace edits and user talk edits, maybe later Jaranda wat's sup 01:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. Fails Diablo Test. Anwar 11:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose. On my criteria it states that I like to see participation in the areas you say you want tools for. For someone with 12000+ edits, you have very few Wikipedia: edits, and very little XfD participation this year, which is concerning for someone who wants to close CfDs and AfDs. Otherwise looks good, would probably support in a few months if you get more involved in the projectspace. BryanG(talk) 22:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose admins need at least some experience of Wikipedia space. Cynical 12:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. Appears to be a good editor but I'm really unimpressed with answers to the questions, particularly the editor's statement that he would try to avoid contentious AfD's and expresses a reluctance to use various mop powers. Admin statistics show we already have many admins who are not actively using their tools and that the bulk of monthly admin activity falls to the minority. I don't think we need to confirm any new admins who are reluctant, wary or scared to jump in to such situations before the community even grants them the tools. Also some answers appear to reflect a lack of policy knowledge. I would also like to see some edit evidence of vandal fighting and an interest in policy through WP participation. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 08:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh? I've reviewed this RfA, and I'm confused. Where did I state that I would try to avoid contentious AfDs?
    Ah, I found it; I read past it several times, and obviously I am interpreting both my and your writing somewhat differently than you are. In question #1, I wrote that, “I am likely to avoid taking on articles where it's a close decision as to whether or not a consensus exists.” To my mind, a contentious AfD is one in which you have two highly passionate or exercised sides. In most cases, that would be an easy “No consensus”, unless one side is very small or one side's arguments fly directly in the face of policy. What I was concerned about was a case in which there is just enough dissention to make it difficult to tell whether the case crosses the line from consensus to a lack thereof. Obviously, I would want to avoid this, particularly as a newbie administrator without much experience with the mop. — DLJessup (talk) 00:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As for my “reluctance to use various mop powers”, I can only presume that you are referring to my initial answer to question #4, in which I expressed that my hope that I wouldn't have to block any users. I thought that I had clarified that with my second response: I hope that the users don't behave in a manner which creates the need for them to be blocked; moreover, if I were voting on an RfA, I would be very wary of an editor who expresses an eagerness to perform blocks.
    Finally, edit evidence of vandal fighting: this page shows at least 23 instances of reverting vandalism. I don't go out of my way to seek out vandalism, but when somebody vandalizes a page I've got watchlisted, I revert it. My recent vandalism reversion count is low, but that's because I had to blow away my watchlist when it got too large to manage.
    — DLJessup (talk) 15:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose lack of namespace/user talk edits. A little more experience wouldnt hurt. --Arnzy (whats up?) 14:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose Does not have the all round level of contributions that I look for. --Wisden17 18:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose. Wikispace participation is necessary because of the admin's role in interpreting and enforcing Wikipedia policy. User talk participation is evidence of a user's dedication to conflict resolution and coordination.—Perceval 03:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose - it depresses me to oppose. Since becoming an admin myself I've realised that one needs to have had heavy involvement with the wikipedia namespace to be able to do the job competently. There are a few admins who are too heavy-handed, and I think it's because they haven't had enough exposure before passing RfA. You're a good editor, though. - Richardcavell 03:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose, good editor but a shortage of Wikipedia namespace edits suggests lack of participation in mission-critical processes like WP:AFD, which a potential admin desperately needs. Stifle (talk) 19:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose per comments above, just too little in the project namespace and usertalk. Shell babelfish 08:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Neutral for now. Appears to be an excellent editor, however answers to the questions show signs of wariness and the the editor may not be prepared for adminship. Yanksox 21:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I put that down more to recognition that the user does not yet have experience as an administrator, and would act as such for the time being. To me, the fact that DLJessup recognises that their decision will not always be correct is a positive thing. RandyWang (raves/rants) 21:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I am happy to see honesty and modesty. However, saying that you're not looking forward to something is not necessarily the best thing on earth to hear. Considering you're going out of your way to be an admin. Unless it's followed up by: ":P" =) Again, I am neutral and more than willing to switch upon further review. Yanksox 21:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Yanksox, I am tempted to change to neutral but haven't yet decided.--Andeh 22:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral. More Wikipedia: edits will be much better.--Jusjih 00:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral. Please enable e-mail. G.He 01:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have enabled my e-mail. — DLJessup (talk) 02:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral I would like to support but you have less than 200 edits on pages under the Wikipedia namespace. Anonymous__Anonymous 10:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral, great editor, though as mentioned above, I would like to see some more project and user talk edits.--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 17:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral even though I couldn't see any vandal fighting in the last 1,000 edits.. Been here a long time too.--Andeh 21:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved to neutral seeing as the user only has 184 user talk edits.--Andeh 18:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral Would have like to see more participation in some areas, but other than that, I would have supported. Reapply in a couple of months and you will get adminship for sure. — The King of Kings 20:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
I just wish to comment that I am positively stunned and amazed at the level of opposition to this fine contributor. 12,000+ edits and months of participation are no longer enough to assure us that an editor will not abuse the tools? Does any voter seriously believe that DLJessup will use administrative powers for any purpose that does not benefit the encyclopedia? bd2412 T 19:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Username DLJessup
Total edits 12441
Distinct pages edited 3466
Average edits/page 3.589
First edit 19:52, November 7, 2004
 
(main) 10052
Talk 835
User 378
User talk 184
Image 76
Image talk 1
Template 623
Template talk 138
Category 4
Category talk 1
Wikipedia 118
Wikipedia talk 31
 G.He 21:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User's last 5000 edits.Voice-of-All 23:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

--Viewing contribution data for user DLJessup (over the 5000 edit(s) shown on this page)--  (FAQ)
Time range: 168 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 23hr (UTC) -- 14, Jun, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 6hr (UTC) -- 29, November, 2005
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 87.95% Minor edits: 99.85%
Average edits per day: 14.1 (for last 500 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 866 edits) : Major article edits: 98.16% Minor article edits: 99.85%
Analysis of edits (out of all 5000 edits shown of this page):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/sourcing): 1% (50)
Small article edits (small content/info/reference additions): 13.58% (679)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 51.28% (2564)
Minor article edits marked as minor: 85.38%
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 2180 | Average edits per page: 2.29 | Edits on top: 21%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 22.5% (1125 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 60.86% (3043 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 11.04% (552 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 5.54% (277 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 79.54% (3977) | Article talk: 6.34% (317)
User: 3.92% (196) | User talk: 1.3% (65)
Wikipedia: 1.56% (78) | Wikipedia talk: 0.42% (21)
Image: 1.52% (76)
Template: 3.12% (156)
Category: 0.08% (4)
Portal: 0% (0)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 2.2% (110)
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 expect that I would help out with cut and paste moves, requested moves, and category deletion. All three interest me, and I have required admin help for all three in the past. I would also help out with articles for deletion, although I am likely to avoid taking on articles where it's a close decision as to whether or not a consensus exists.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: One contribution that was particularly pleasing can be seen at Talk:United States presidential election, 1800#Delaware a draw?. I had set up a table listing the results of the balloting for President in the contingent election. Another editor (Jfruh) raised questions about the wording I used in this table, and I strongly disagreed with his proposed remedy. After a bit of research, I found that I could add more detail to the table. By doing so, I could actually resolve his objections, and I actually liked the result better.
Another contribution that was particularly pleasing was the change I made to Template:Hndis to allow editors to use an unnamed parameter instead of the “name” parameter. This was nifty because it required a bit of technical knowledge of the MediaWiki software (the new #if pseudo-template), and it elegantly solved a problem: because it was far more natural to use a positional parameter instead of the “name” parameter, editors kept adding the ((hndis)) template so that it wouldn't sort correctly in Category:Lists of ambiguous human names.
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: Anybody who has not been in conflict over editing on Wikipedia hasn't been on Wikipedia for very long; we all have opinions and they will inevitably disagree at some point. (Warning: mind-numbing detail ahead.) When a user makes an edit I disagree with, I first modify the article, giving my rationale in the edit summary. If I can, I try not to revert the edit, but instead to make a change that seems to incorporate both their and my rationales. This is not always possible, especially if I don't understand the rationale behind another editor's change. Sometimes my edit stands, and there's no problem. But sometimes, the editor reverts my change. Sometimes, the editor will provide a rationale, either in the talk page or the edit summary, which I will agree with, and again, there's no problem. Otherwise, I will make my change, providing a rationale in the talk page. At this point, a discussion usually continues on the talk page, and the problem almost always ends up resolved.
The thing is, conflicts can be good; they can spur us to make the articles better than they would be if we were left alone. The problem is that we only have a limited number of hours in the day, so edit conflicts can frustrate us from doing actual work on Wikipedia. (That, I've found, is the true source of stress (for me, at least) with other users.) This is why I try to avoid heavily edited articles and instead pay attention to articles with low rates of churn. (Early on, I had Condoleezza Rice and Al Gore on my watchlist; I think Rice dropped off within a week, and Gore within two months.)
Questions from Yanksox (optional)
4. To you, what is the most important ability that an admin has? How could this benefit you? Yanksox 21:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For me, the most important ability that an admin has is the ability to undelete deleted versions. It transforms the deletion ability from a blunt instrument to a fine tool which allows for article merging, fixing cut-and-paste jobs, and the like, which as noted above are chores I expect to be helping out on. Moreover, while at some point I may have to protect a page or block a user, it's not something I look forward to having to do. — DLJessup (talk) 21:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Before I respond to question 5, I'd like to respond to a comment made by Yanksox above about my answer to this question (question 4): “…saying that you're not looking forward to something is not necessarily the best thing on earth to hear.” I may not have been clear in my answer. If I have to protect a page, that means that there's been massive vandalism or a heated edit war. If I have to block a user, that means that we've got an editor out there who's being abusive. Abusive and out-of-control users are not good things, and if I were looking forward to having to deal with them, I would think that you'd have cause to question my temperment as an admin. It's a part of the job, but it shouldn't be a pleasant part of the job. — DLJessup (talk) 22:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Why do you think you would make a good admin? Are you well prepared? Yanksox 22:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly believe that I would make a good admin, or I wouldn't have gone for the role. I have been on Wikipedia for over a year and a half and performed over 10 000 edits, so I know my way around. While I don't seek it out, I have come into conflict with many users over many different issues, and I have developed (albeit sometimes through hard experience) some degree of knowledge of how to avoid needless conflict and hopefully some appreciation for when such conflict is needful. I am technically astute, as can be witnessed by my many changes to templates or by the fact that I am a computer programmer in Real LifeTM. I have requested moves, fixes for cut-and-paste edits, and deletions (both speedy and otherwise), so I have seen where admins can help out. I have asked questions at the Village Pump and been amazed at the speed of response. I am aware of the noticeboard and WP:ANI. I think that I'm well prepared. Is there anything that you think I should know that I don't appear to? (This last question may be taken as flippant. It is not. The problem with gaps in knowledge is that sometimes you don't know that the gaps are there. If there is such a gap in my knowledge, I'd like to fill it as rapidly as possible.) — DLJessup (talk) 23:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question from GHe

6. I noticed that you current have no confirmed email, or chose not to receive email. Email is an important means of communication, especially for admins, since they may also deal with requests from blocked users. Will you enable email or confirm an address now? G.He 01:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User has enabled email. G.He 03:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DriniQuestion

Do you think admins performing actions (deletions, blocks) for reasons not covered on policy should be sanctioned? If so, how? -- Drini 19:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Short answer: (Er, this answer wasn't too short, was it?) Abuse of administrative privileges should definitely be sanctioned. The first time it happens, it will most likely be an accident, and a warning will probably suffice. Repeated offenses should receive escalating penalties: blocks and/or suspension or removal of adminship. (I'm not sure how feasible suspension of adminship would be: from what I understand of MediaWiki software, both the removal and restoration of admin authority would have to be done manually, and the removal would have to be done by a steward, not a mere bureaucrat.)
So the question reduces to: can an admin not be abusing their privileges when they perform a deletion or block for a reason not covered on policy?
Now, as far as deletions go, I have to say that there is no such possibility. If an article doesn't meet speedy criteria, it's put up for AfD. Anything unprecedented or unusual is put up to the community to decide, so that we need not rely on a single person's judgement. Similar statements can be made about images, categories, and templates. Now, I suppose if Wikipedia were being sued, there might be grounds for a rapid deletion not covered by policy, but such a situation would be handled much closer to the Jimbo Wales level than the admin level. I don't see where there's room for an out-of-policy deletion, so sanctions would always be appropriate for out-of-policy deletions.
I am somewhat less familiar with the policies involved in blocking, because I have never been involved in blocking a user (whereas I have been involved in the various XfD procedures). Nonetheless, there doesn't seem to be an equivalent catchall to allow the community to evaluate a block; the closest equivalent is “Users who exhaust the community's patience”. Thus, while an out-of-policy block is probably a sign of abuse, it is a bit fuzzier than an out-of-policy delete.
Please let me know if this answer was unclear.
— DLJessup (talk) 06:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question by -Ambuj Saxena (talk)

Q I want to give you an opportunity to address the concerns raised by your opposers. There has been concerns that you plan to work on XfDs and you have very little experience in these areas. Please address their concerns as an answer to this question.

A:. What I specifically wrote was that I wanted to work on cut-and-paste moves, requested moves, category deletion, and AfDs, with an emphasis on the first three. Now, the main concern here is probably that I might make mistakes through a lack of experience.
Let me try to allay this concern by pointing to a recent AfD where I thought I had made a mistake through lack of experience. Back in March, an anonymous editor replaced the text of the article John W. Brown (which was about a labor leader who had had a Liberty ship named after him) with a biography of a host of The Daily Buzz. I reverted his changes, with appropriate remarks in the edit summary. Shortly thereafter, a link for John WI Brown was added to John Brown by John.brown@dailybuzz.tv. I investigated, and found an almost identical copy to the biography I had reverted. I also found that Gator had put up a speedy delete notice, indicating that the page was a vanity page. I looked up the criteria for speedy deletion, and I didn't see any reference to vanity pages. I also checked out Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines, which stated that, “Vanity by itself is not a basis for deletion.” I therefore changed the notice from a speedy to a standard AfD. Immediately, of course, Gator added a note in favor of deletion, noting that it met ((db-bio)).
My immediate thought was that I had made an error in changing the speedy to an AfD. ((db-bio)) was listed on the “Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion” page, but under “Deletion templates”, not under the list of criteria. I therefore contacted an admin whose opinion I respected, NoSeptember and asked him for advice and to speedy delete the article if it was indeed deserving of a speedy delete. NoSeptember noted that slowing down a deletion wasn't very harmful, and then, after investigating, complimented me on a good catch, because the notability of the subject (which was the key to the deletion) was in dispute. (See User talk:DLJessup#John WI Brown and NoSeptember's talk page history.)
Now, there are a few things I can point out about this situation. First of all, I now understand the criteria for deletion of vanity pages really well. :-) Secondly, my behavior during this episode was always aimed at trying to get the correct result. When I thought there might be a problem with a speedy delete, I went to project page and double-checked the criteria. (Note that if Gator had actually written that the article was “not notable”, I probably would have accepted the speedy; it was the fact that he had left that off and instead noted that the page was vanity that caught my attention.) Where I might have erred, in changing the speedy to an AfD, I erred in the direction of caution. — DLJessup (talk) 02:45, 20 June 2006 (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