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

Jarry1250[edit]

FINAL (77/2/1); closed 16:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC) by EVula

Nomination[edit]

Jarry1250 (talk · contribs) – Jarry1250 is a great editor and, I believe, he'll make an excellent admin. He's been a Wikipedian since 2006, but really highly active since November (7 months). He's never run for adminship before, but many people assume he's one already. Always polite and helpful, he answers questions at AN and ANI occasionally, and he's an active member of the Bot approvals group. He gives answers at Reference Desk, makes feature requests and error reports, and has a good mix of article contributions, discussion, and cleanup work. He's never been blocked, never been complained about on AN or ANI, or anything similar. I've gone through the user's history pretty thoroughly, and I feel he has the experience and temperament for the job. – Quadell (talk) 15:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Co-Nomination

I would like to support this nomination; Quadell has said it already, but Jarry1250 has shown himself to be a useful and courteous editor here, particularly as a member of the Bot Approvals Group. Nothing in his history indicates that he would misuse the tools, and I am happy to co-nominate his application. Rodhullandemu 16:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I would be delighted to accept. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 16:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

1 to 13[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: I can honestly say that my administrative work would reflect my non-administrative work - in other words, my own personal interests. I would help to monitor the blocking, unblocking and general management of bots, for example, building on my work with the BAG. Then there's new page patrol; though I often spending more time improving new articles than tagging them for deletion, there are always contributions that will need to be deleted immediately[1] (particularly at peak times, when resources have a tendency to become overstretched[2]). I have not contributed to hundreds of XfDs in my 7 months here (maybe 25 - 50?) but I really would like to help out there when it came to closing the less controversial debates. Other areas I would like to help out with - at least from time to time - would be DYK and the abuse filter (as it fits with my programming background). Naturally, I will never stop content-creating, and I have already signed up for the 2010 Wikicup in expectation.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: The most direct answer here would be Percy Shaw Jeffrey (because of the feeling of achievement after doing everything under my own steam) and History of the United Kingdom during World War I (because it's been a good experience to work with other editors who have a different set of skills), but taking a broader view of "contributions", there are a lot of different bits and pieces from which I would find it hard to choose the "best". Certainly, my work both creating and approving bots gives me a great sense of satisfaction; likewise being able to help out on the help and reference desks appeals to my nature.[3] I've also worked on English heraldry, which I created, and similar pages - I could fill holes in Wikipedia with my knowledge, a nice feeling. Who knows what lasting effect those edits will have? It's hard to say. At the moment, I'm excited with the Fronds project (a plugin for AWB) which takes advantage of my toolserver access and the recent commit access that Reedy gave me to the source code behind AWB itself.
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: Like many of the thanks I receive, negative feedback is normally related to the actions of my bot. I generally handle this like any good programmer would: instead of responding to the emotion (for better or worse), I tend to see them as either bug reports, feature requests, or complaints about the intended actions of the bot. Bugs and FRs I act on, but I listen most carefully to the third group. Specifically, this meant User:Jarry1250/RFC and related discussions, where I have tried to improve upon the bot's design.[4] There, I tried to respond as fully as I could to the irate Kleinzach. On the stress front, I remember taking some comment or other of JLaTondre's rather (too) personally sometime in January or February. I don't really wish to re-live that tête-à-tête, so I haven't checked the archives, but I am lead to believe that realising the nature of the discussion I thankfully backed away soon after. In the long run, perhaps it was that episode which hardened me to the often emphatic debates which are an important part of Wikipedia. I take both that and the generally upbeat, constructive tones of the RFC forward into the future.

TL;DR:

  1. ^ Unambiguous advertising, copyright violations and attack pages to name but a few.
  2. ^ Of course, I doubt there will ever come a time when we can just sit back and relax, but you know what I mean.
  3. ^ If anyone's interested I also run a website in real life, for which I and a few others have written a collection of a hundred tutorials.
  4. ^ I have, of course, stopped the bot pending the outcome of discussion.

Question from Dekimasu

4. Have you ever been paid to edit or maintain an article on Wikipedia? Is paid editing on Wikipedia an acceptable practice?
A: Okay, the first part of the question is the easier, I fancy: No, definitely not. As for the second part, my overriding emotion here is one of balance. In general, one might equate paid editing - in its simpler forms - to an overpowering WP:Conflict of Interest. That is to say, I am not in favour of any outright ban on it; instead, paid edits should conform to a high level of scrutiny. At the end of the day, the best outcome is the one that yields the most accurate, reliable and complete encyclopaedia possible, and it is to that end that we must strive. As for more complicated systems - pay-per-edit for example - I have little sympathy. Editors should not game the system, full stop (or period if you prefer).

Question from Jafeluv

5. Would you like to explain the reasoning behind this proposed deletion, and why you think it was denied?
A: Certainly. Basically it was a page that I had been doing a lot of work on, because it was far too large and unwieldy to be useful to anyone, merging content into other pages, and creating new pages to host that content in a more logical and accessible form. Finally, having merged all useful content into other pages, I cast a critical over over keeping the page itself. Deciding that it was not a searchable term, I thought it best the page be deleted. As for why this was declined, I believe it is do with the GFDL: namely, the conservation of contributors information, a point I hadn't really given much thought to beforehand.
Additional optional questions from Groomtech
6. Do you believe that Wikipedians have rights? If so, what will you do to uphold them?
A: Yes, I believe that they do have rights, but not the ones that immediately spring to mind. It is nonsense to argue that editors have some sort of right to free speech here, for example, a common complaint from those who have just had their personal crusades deleted. What they do have, however, is the right to be treated in a reasonable, civil manner, without fear. Baseless personal attacks (both towards Wikipedia editors, as in this case, or generally) are simply unforgivable, and something I really want to be able to limit, through the deletion of unacceptable pages and the suitable punishment of such vandals.

Optional questions from User:Dlohcierekim that he lifted form User:Benon who got them from Tawker, JoshuaZ, Rob Church, NSLE. (And one of my own.) Nominally 100% optional, but may help myself or other voters decide. Some of these are not specifically related to your areas of interest. If I have already voted please feel free to ignore these questions though other editors might find them to be of use. You can also remove the questions you don't want to touch if you like.

7. Under what circumstances would you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?
A- Assuming that the ArbCom reference is not one I'm supposed to follow up on, there are a range of topics for which one can be indefinately blocked. My answer to Q13 gives the most blatant, potentially no-warning circumstances. Evidentally the full list is available elsewhere and is a bit long and boring to repeat here.
8. Suppose you are closing an AfD where it would be keep if one counted certain votes that you suspect are sockpuppets/meatpuppets and would be delete otherwise. The RCU returns inconclusive, what do you do? Is your answer any different if the two possibilities are between no consensus and delete?
A- Well, the first thing any admin worth his salt would do is to analyse the arguments presented by the suspected sockpuppets. AfD is not a vote count; thankfully, most sockpuppetry, where it occurs, is to further a view of WP:ILIKEIT or WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - in other words, arguments which carry little weight. I find it hard to imagine the circumstances where sockpuppets could contribute anything new to the debate, so - if I may - I might ignore that possibility.
9. Do you believe there is a minimum number of people who need to express their opinions in order to reasonably close an AfD? If so, what is that number? What about RfDs and CfDs?
A- In an ideal world, there would be no lower limit. In real life, however, there are always going to be XfDs where little discussion has been generated, and in that case it would be the closing admin's job to analyse the arguments presented on both sides of the debate. Personally, I would find strong arguments unrefuted enough to cause a close. That would probably be in concordance with the nominator (delete). If I were forced to pick a figure, 4+1 to 0 seems perfectly reasonable; argubly, 4+1 to 1 does not. In cases where the parties are against the nominator (keep), it would be much harder to tell.
10. At times, administrators have experienced, or have been close to burnout due to a mixture of stress and conflict inherent in a collaborative web site of this nature. Do you feel able to justify yourself under pressure, and to not permit stress to become overwhelming and cause undesirable or confused behaviour?
A- Justifying myself under pressure is something I would put on my own list of traits, but is evidentally subjective, so you may want to check my edit history for yourself. I would like to think (for better or worse) that "confused" is certainly out of the question for me. I believe I am rarely overwhelmed by stress, and that thankfully the most likely outcome for me is to walk away in times of stress, either from that particular debate or from the computer altogether. Personally, I need 8 hours of sleep a day, else I feel physically ill, so sheer exhaustion is less likely to be a major contributing factor.
11. Why do you want to be an administrator?
A Well, in terms of timing, I've just finished my exams for this year, and am looking forward to a relatively empty summer. The question is how to best make use of that time for the benefit of the encyclopaedia, and I felt - and still do - that being an administrator offers the greatest selection of possibilities. On the more general topic of adminship, I think my answer to 1) gives away a lot: "I can honestly say that my administrative work would reflect my non-administrative work - in other words, my own personal interests.". The pursuit of a hobby, the sense of a greater goal - a truly addictive combination to me.
12.In reviewing new articles, is it better to delete an article that meets WP:CSD on sight, or to search for verifiable information with reliable sourcing that would show the subject to be notable? Does it make a difference as to which criteria the article meets?
A- To work backwards: Yes, it matter which criteria the article meets. Though I often spending more time improving new articles than tagging them for deletion, there are always contributions that will need to be deleted immediately: copyright violations and attack pages to name but two. Here, improving means sourcing the article, or cleaning it up. It is easy to be rather too subjective when it comes to how an article looks, and if a mere google search can add some objectivity into that process, then I think we all should do so.
13. Is there any set of circumstances in which you would block a user without them having received a full set of warnings? Please be as thorough as possible in answering.
A- The example that jumps out at me, given my background, is the blocking of bots which are unapproved and/or malfunctioning (usually this means doing harm), because the operator can always appeal. Another obvious choice would be obviously inappropriate usernames: yesterday, I reported one such username and it was blocked immediately. One might also bring in obviously shared accounts, where they've put their password on their userpage, for example. Of course, the bulk of indef-blocks are for persistent vandalism, where there is little hope of constructive editing, but in these cases I feel that the present warning system (ruthlessly enforced by Higgle) is apt.
14+[edit]
Questions from Tony1
14. What is your view of the notion of AdminReview, a community-driven process—still in draft form—for dealing with prima facie reasonable grievances against the use of or threat to use administrator tools in a way a user believes has breached admin policy?
A- It seems a reasonable process to me at least, and, given that it is non-binding, it is virtually impossible to argue against having. Anything that increases the accountability of administrators to know the consequences of their actions must be a good thing, and if this process helps to narrow the widening gap between admins and everyone else then it has my support.
15. Do you believe the policy on admin behaviour as expressed at WP:ADMIN should be set out in a codified and easy-to-read form on that policy page? An example of such a codification is here.
A-I'm going to be brave here and suggest that the present form of the guidelines should be left untouched. I like the codified version, and it is easy-to-read, but I wouldn't like it to be the letter of the law. Maybe it's because I'm British, but I have a certain attachment to non-specific rules; they offer a inherent flexibility for one to be able to follow the intentions of policy, rather than the letter of it. That's not to say that I'm opposed to the codified version; indeed, it acts as a useful summary I would happily agree to follow, but I would just prefer a prose version. Hopefully that's a suitable answer.
16. What is your view on encouraging an optional pre-blocking protocol for dealing with established editors who have been uncivil, comprising the issuing by an admin of a Warning to the editor and a request to Apologise to the recipient(s) of the incivility and to Strike through the offending text (the WAS protocol), as an alternative to blocking? More generally, do you encourage a shift towards admins' use of their mediation skills in such cases? Tony (talk) 08:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A- On the specific WAS protocol, the idea does appeal to me, but only for a certain range of misdemeanors. There's incivility in a moment of anger ("F*** off already! ... [200 more characters]") and then there's a spite-filled crusade. I would have absolutely no problem reducing the penalty given to the speaker of the first comment if they apologised, but there is a line. Moving onto the more general question of admins mediating more often: my own view would be that some admins are naturally more talented at mediation, and I would encourage these to involve themselves more. Others, less so; an unfortunate side effect may be to only deepen the dispute.

Question from Aquillion

17. Do you feel that RfA currently gets too many 'optional' questions for aspiring admins?
A-I think there is a certain redundancy behind some questions, yes, but some (like Tony1's, above) are things I would not have considered before, and now seems as good a time as any to start considering them. I don't feel that any of the questions above is irrelevant.

Optional question from Keepscases

18. Kindly demonstrate your grammar skills by explaining at least one way Quadell's nomination could be improved.
A: Ha! I love it. I couldn't find anything major to show off with, but here goes (the more general sense of grammar here): I would rewrite the first sentence - the parentheses are a tad clunky and my preference would be for the conditional here; I would be tempted to pick one of "really" and "highly"; the pronoun "one" doesn't actually refer back to anything (though its meaning is clear from the context); then I'd capitalise Bot Approvals Group; the Reference Desk; I'd also have "nor anything similar". But that's being picky.

Questions from Allstarecho

19. You've been a Wikipedian since 2006 but only really active since November 2008 - 7 months as has been pointed out. What brought about this change/return? And make this a good answer please, it's the first question I've ever posted in an RfA. ;] - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 16:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, first a little background. I have quite a few friends in real life who have an insatiable need to play politics. Now, one of these started his own satire/politics based wiki. It was fun and lasted a few weeks - very much the geek equivalent of a MMORPG (Ha! The thought!), by which time I'd become familiar with the whole behind-the-scenes side of running a wiki. By the time that that wiki failed, I'd caught the bug. The need to edit and check my watchlist every ten minutes overtook me, and so I turned to an old Wikipedia account I had hanging around for solace, and, seven-months on, here I am. Good enough?
20. Buckling-spring keyboard or Dome-switch keyboard? - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 16:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, one of these seemingly obvious questions. I'm not too much of a purist, so I'll talk in general here rather than in specifics, but I do prefer a chunky, stronger feedback response so I can tell when I'm typing and when I'm not. (Maybe I'd plump for Buckling-spring then. Maybe.). I quite like the Logitech S510 I'm using at the moment, it has some nifty buttons for pausing Spotify when I need to concentrate on some complicated bit of programming logic, and good battery life so I can work round the clock when I want. Now, my challenge to you: find a subtle subtext in that response.
Questions from User:Carlossuarez46
21a. What policy areas have you contributed to?
A. You mean like shaping policy, or working within it? Assuming the former, I would raise that of bot policy, though I would be hard pressed to find an instance where I had personally forced through a change, rather than just contributed to relevant debates.
21b. If you had the power to change a policy, which would you choose and what would you change and why?
A. I'll stick my head out a little here if I may (given that the scenario is entirely hypothetical. I've given it some thought, and I've decided that I would change WP:NOSHARE. I would like to see sharing an account treated with an amount of discretion, rather than a straight-off block. That is to say, a sliding scale approach, like a mix of what we have in operation for vandalism and WP:conflicts of interest. I would hope that this would be a bit less bite-ish towards newcomers who are used to sharing internet accounts on other sites (husband and wife for an example). Now, I understand that this has some legal connotations, but I believe that tolerating fully-disclosed account-sharers that were causing no harm is within the realms of legal possibility.
22. Do longstanding essays (WP:SNOW, WP:OUTCOMES, WP:ATA, for a few) have any weight in XFD debates?
A. To say "yes" (and to a lesser extent, "no") here would, I believe, be to acknowledge a fundamental mis-understanding of what essays are. They are descriptive (he refrains from putting that in block caps) - they document what happens in debates. To clarify via an example: WP:OUTCOMES covers what routinely happens at XFD. To invoke it as an argument in one of these very XFDs... well, one wonders how one could do it successfully anyway. The best result is always given through specifics, not generalisations. ATA is a slightly different case here, insofar as it helps admin closers to find meanful points, and what merely boils down to nothingness.
23. Can WikiProject policies widen or narrow community policies or guidelines for articles within the scope (two examples: can WikiProject FooSport determine that any competitor in FooSport at a particular level is notable? that no stubs of FooSport participants be permitted and any stubs must be redirected to team roster lists until something beyond a stub is written)?
A. I fear I may be repeating myself here, but the logic here is ultimately the wrong way round. WikiProjects are merely groups of people sharing a common interest. All WikiProject "policies" should be able to be scrutinised (and/or rejected) by the wider community. Any which way you look at it, articles operate on a case by case basis, and can always be approached in that manner. It is not for WikiProjects to decide hard and firm rules without community consensus. So, taking your question (from which I have regrettably deviated) as it is written: no, particularly with regards to the first question. Notability is not something which requires rubber-stamping, by definition.

Question from Quadell

24. Do you feel that RfA currently gets too many 'redundant' questions for aspiring admins?
A. It's the experienced admins who are the worst! (Just kidding, Quadell.) I can only really comment on my own, which (for some odd reason) I'm pretty happy with, all things considered.

Question from Rodhullandemu

24a. And is "too many", juxtaposed with "redundant", redundant? Rodhullandemu 23:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A. Yes. Tsk tsk Quadell.

General comments[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Jarry1250 before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

User:Neurolysis/Counters.js

Support[edit]
  1. As nom, – Quadell (talk) 15:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support; seen him around, will do a fine job. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support as co-nom. Rodhullandemu 16:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Good bot op. MBisanz talk 17:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I've seen nothing but good things from Jarry, he's a very sensible member of the community who would do well with the tools. Pending no major skeletons in his contributions, I'm very happy to support. ~ mazca t|c 17:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Looks great! LittleMountain5 17:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Knowledgeable. Clean block log. Deleted contributions look good, and even show a few instances of trying to clean up articles to avoid deletion, suggesting he won't haphazardly swing the mop around. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support - Should be a fine admin. Wisdom89 (T / C) 17:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support No problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 17:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support I've never supported someone in an RFA before, but I am supporting this editor. The editor has never been blocked, has a good number of edits in WP/WP talk namespaces, is willing to help editors and is quite polite while doing it. I cannot think of any reason why this editor might abuse the tools that come with being an admin.--Rockfang (talk) 17:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support I like the answers to the questions. Also, looking at Jarry's contribs, I see nothing that would suggest he would misuse the tools. Good luck. Timmeh!(review me) 17:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Very useful contributor to Wikipedia, no evidence that he will abuse the tools, polite and helpful. Paste Let’s have a chat. 17:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support I see nothing wrong with the candidate, but also because the oppose by CWii 3 (talk · contribs) really irritated me. Aditya α ß 17:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Sure I see no issues. Meetare Shappy Cunkelfratz! 19:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. Jarry1250 does great work with the BAG, and like many others, I already thought he was an admin. Matt (talk) 19:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - Sure! :) – (iMatthew • talk) at 19:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Strong Support-reliable trustworthy user-good for stalking! Dotty••|☎ 19:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support--Giants27 (t|c) 19:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Strong Support. I think Jarry1250 would make an excellent admin, and his skill set would be enhanced by having access to the admin tools. I don't see anything which leads me to believe the tools would be abused, and a lot which indicates they tools would be used for a lot of good. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. NW (Talk) 20:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Sure — Jake Wartenberg 20:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Weak support Good work in all areas. However, you should have a higher manual edit count. -download ׀ sign! 21:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. The first time I saw his note at WT:RFA, I knew he was going to be a really, really good admin. Civil, intelligent, and very talented with bots. ceranthor 21:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Liked Answer 12. seems unlikely to hastily delete.Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. Trusted as BAG-member, speedy-work looks good, seems like a sensible candidate for the mop, I see no concerns. Regards SoWhy 21:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Big fan of Jarry's work all around, but especially relating to bots and BAG. True desire to make the place better and more amenable, and I see the administrator tools as the next, logical extension of the interests of the candidate. We had a very (brief) agreeable disagreement which lends strongly to my !vote. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 23:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. An excellent user. bibliomaniac15 03:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. Dependable bot-operator --TitanOne (talk) 04:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. I was a little considered about your deletion work, but couldn't find any problems in your recent AfDs. The answer to Q5 is what I was looking for, and your bot work seems top notch. No reason not to trust you with the tools. Jafeluv (talk) 05:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Strong Support Treat this as a co-nom. I have interacted with him at BAG and Botrequests and found him to be a very sensible and polite person. I trust him with the bots ( oh yea, mop here ! ) -- Tinu Cherian - 07:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Why not? Stifle (talk) 09:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support —Reedy 10:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. A++++++, would buy from again. Jude (talk) 10:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Bot-knowledgeable admin equals win. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 10:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. BAG work means a lot to me at RFA. - Dank (push to talk) 14:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support per above. --Aquillion (talk) 14:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support: highly intelligent, tech-savvy, administratively savvy, good people skills. I like his bot and I like the way the bot page is documented—sets a good standard. BAG will be increasingly important at WP, so his adminship is a step forward. Well done. Tony (talk) 15:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support: All of my interaction with Jarry1250 has been greatly positive and I have no doubt that he will make good use of the tools. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. I don't agree with all of his opinions. However he gives considered comments and collaborates well. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support but do some more work on AfD please. -- ₪ Amused Repose Converse! 18:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless you don't want to. Do what you want on Wikipedia, as an editor or an admin. Keeper | 76 00:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Excellent user Triplestop (talk) 19:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support No major(or minor) issues. America69 (talk) 20:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  43. — Aitias // discussion 21:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Solid candidate, per Rod Hull, and Emu. Keeper | 76 00:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support - Trust nominators judgment. — R2 04:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support: My authority on the subject has declared his speedy work is ok so far, so that's that important box ticked for me. And he clearly has what is (to me) the most important attributes of any potential admin: intelligence, the application of said intelligence, self-awareness, and the ability (nay, preference) to back away from drama. What could go wrong? Maedin\talk 06:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support - I analyzed his edits, and there is nothing to worry about. AdjustShift (talk) 13:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support, more admins needed, good candidate for this. --candle•wicke 16:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. No reason to oppose.OtisJimmyOne 16:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. Erudite and sensible. Clue present. Fribbler (talk) 16:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  51. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 18:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support Has clue. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 19:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Keepscases (talk) 21:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support, read quite a few RfAs without commenting, this one just strikes me as a strong case of "Why not?" --Taelus (talk) 21:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  55. WP:AGF--Caspian blue 22:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support – having ran into this user at the village pump several times, is very knowledgeable and willing user who goes out of his way to help out. MuZemike 02:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support and I am unanimous in this. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 02:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support 7/8 months not enough? To me, this user has demonstrated that he can be trusted. hmwithτ 04:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support No problems here. A great editor. --Siva1979Talk to me 12:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. Seems solid and trustworthy. -- Banjeboi 14:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support I've encountered Jarry in several areas, and the editor always bring calm, well-reasoned, and considerate posts to the the table. Strong answers to the questions (even keyboard ones), and a dedicated Wikipedian who can bring good things to the project with a couple extra buttons. — Ched :  ?  17:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support as candidate meets User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards by having never been blocked or having had any memorable negative interactions with me. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 18:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support. Looks like a good candidate. — Σxplicit 20:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support per 20Q. Wizardman 02:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support I've had positive interactions with Jarry1250 in the past, and believe he would do well with the tools. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support. Good editor. Malinaccier (talk) 20:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support - no worries.  Frank  |  talk  11:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support, no reasons to oppose at all. Jozal (talk) 17:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support seems to know what s/he's doing and good answers to questions. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support - looks good: sufficient time, edit count, and article work. We could use an admin who is a member of the Heraldry and vexillology WikiProject. No major concerns. Bearian (talk) 20:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support Seems capable, good luck...Modernist (talk) 21:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support - he has been reliable and very helpful with the Signpost — traits that I think would also make him a good admin. --Aude (talk) 01:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support;;; He has been reliable and has demonstrated a clear and thorough knowledge of his subjects, namely heraldry and history, even though he has only been here awhile, and writes in a clear and coherent style. He is sysop material. jftsang 02:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note to closing 'crat: I know this guy in real life, the joker. Just for the record. - Jarry1250 (t, c, rfa) 07:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support knows what he is doing. LegoKontribsTalkM 04:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support - From what I've seen, he's a reliable user with a lot of experience for such a short time of Wikipedia. I look forward to seeing him as an admin. just a little insignificant 17:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Qualified Support - Has been a good contributor to the discussion on renaming Conservative Party (UK). Bit dismissive at first, but is now really mediating well. Orthorhombic (talk) 21:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support, no reason not to. One two three... 09:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]

#Oppose I like him, but he needs more than 7 months active. Come back in 5 months. --CWii 3 (talk) 17:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC) Comment by banned user. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Oppose It's probably better by most people's standards to be alone in the Oppose section than have your only proponent be a banned user, but hopefully this won't discredit my opinion too much. I just don't see enough experience in relevant project areas to trust you with the tools at this point.--Koji† 22:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per above. Peter Damian (talk) 06:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. He's got some decent contributions, including a GA or two, but I am concerned about how long he has been here. There's no bright line for how long is long enough, but to me he's on the wrong side. That said, there were no glaring answers or contributions I saw that would substantiate my fears, so I am going neutral. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    He started in December 2006 and has been active for eight (afaik) months. What more do you want? Pzrmd (talk) 03:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No need to reply to that one David. I understand completely. - Jarry1250 (t, c, rfa) 09:00, 20 June 2009 (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