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

Jayron32[edit]

Final (73/0/0); Closed as successful by WjBscribe at 03:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron32 (talk · contribs) - It is with great pleasure that I present for your consideration an editor who I have great respect for: Jayron32. He's been with the project for a year and a half and has about 8,000 edits (including deleted ones). I worked with Jayron in WikiProject Good articles for two months before I realized he wasn't an admin. He has both impressed and inspired me through his thorough and thoughtful edits. A very intelligent and helpful editor who keeps a cool head in stressful situations, Jayron would be a wonderful addition to the administrative team.

The proud recipient of both Durova's Triple crown and Imperial triple crown awards, he has written four Featured articles (1 2 3 4), three Good articles (1 2 3), and four DYKs (1 2 3 4). He has 97 reports to AIV and roughly 600 articles successfully tagged for speedy deletion during his new page patrolling. Heavy participation at AN/I, VPP, AFD has further strengthened his grasp on Wikipedia policy as well as inspired him to write an essay on effective arguing and some musings on notability. For all the above reasons coupled with my frequent interactions with him, I'm confident that granting Jayron the use of the tools would be of great benefit to the project. Lara❤Love 19:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nom by the_undertow: This guy rocks, srs. I'm srsly. He is a great asset at AfD, which a great place to familiarize oneself with policies such as deletion, consensus, and just what can be speedied and what needs to go through the process. And get this - the dude uses his userspace for something constructive. Unlike myself, who chooses to showcase my friends, my pecs or just general nonsense, I visit this guy's page to find the links that I should have bookmarked. And although I show his work on policy and housekeeping to be an great asset, I won't hold it against him that he's helped edit like a million articles and knows how to seriously contribute from all sides. Teh candidate is a Renaissance Person (see how politically correct I am?) - and what would Isaac Newton been without a mop? Yeah. Just another dirty guy who got hit in the head with an apple. I think you're getting my point.

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept --Jayron32|talk|contribs 20:56, 3 January 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 admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I generally spend a lot of time doing deletion work; usually tagging CSD articles or voting at AFD. I feel, given my level of involvement in those processes, I could be more helpful with the admin tools. I have also been involved in vandalism control, and again, given my familiarity with the process of warning and reverting vandalism, I feel I could be helpful in reducing vandalism by blocking egregious vandals or protecting pages as needed.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 20:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Well, my best work has been at my featured articles, such as Plymouth Colony and History of American football. Both articles were in rather sad states. They were largely unreferenced, had spotty writing, and were poorly organized or incomplete. I shepherded each to feature status, first by doing research myself and rewriting and fully referencing them, and secondly by seeking outside help with things I was not as good with (such as copyeding and graphics). One article I created and took all the way to feature status (with, of course, the help of several other editors) is Timeline of chemistry which I created from scratch, since I saw a need and Wikipedia was missing one entirely. Those three were probably my most challenging, and at the same time most fulfilling, work at Wikipedia.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 20:56, 3 January 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 generally try to avoid becoming overly heated or stressed in Wikipedia, but conflict is unavoidable. I generally try to defuse conflict before it gets out of hand. Generally, my feeling is that conflict can be avoided by being flexible. Let others know you are willing to change your opinion; but also be clear on why you hold your opinions, and what it would take for you to compromise, and what you are unwilling to compromise on. At something around 50% of the AFDs I have participated in, I have changed my initial vote given new evidence and work by other editors. It is important to stay with an issue until it is resolved, and realize that your involvement is more than just a vote.
For some specific difs of situations where I think I have been able to avoid, difuse, or reduce conflict by my actions, see my response to a user asking about deletion of articles he created, or this AFD where I changed my vote based on new information, another of the same, and this one where I attempted to explain why I archived a dead-end discussion: this was the discussion I archived. That was a tough decision, and it did lead to some conflict, but clearly not every decision will be appreciated by all users, for example if I had to delete an article a user created. However, I feel that I can be diplomatic and clear in my reasons for making my decisions, and still be able to take decisive action.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 20:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional Question from Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth

4 Can you name a time you have went out of your way to help a fellow Wikipedian? Provide differences if you'd like :). Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 23:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A:Well, here's a situation where I helped a user who was having trouble with a fair use image rationale. I fixed it for them, then explained how to avoid the problem in the future. See: [1], [2], [3], and [4]. I can provide additional difs that show similar situations if you'd like. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional Question from User:Malleus Fatuarum

5. Do you feel that if you were to become an admin you would be under an obligation to behave differently from/better than any other editor? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 05:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A: Nope. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't you, for instance, feel more able to disagree with other editors once your self-imposed period of pre-nomination purdah was over? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 05:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your question here. Could you clairfy?--Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let me try to refresh your memory. [5] --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 06:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The link in question only points to my statement that experienced editors (NOT admins, but experienced editors) develop a reputation based on their experience, and new editors lack that reputation, and thus should be handled differently depending on the situation. I stand by that statement. It is a response to Agne's statement above it. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 13:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional Question from Hdt83

6. If you were to encounter an article with the following tag and the article is about a word with only the definition, would you delete it?
A. It depends on the article in question. Being a dictionary definition is, of itself NOT a CSD criteria, so if that was the ONLY problem, I would remove the tag and make a talk-page comment as to why the article was NOT deleted. DicDefs should use PROD or AFD, since they may be the start of an article that needs help, or something else, and should be given some time. However, I would still delete the article if, for example, the article clearly met another criteria for speedy deletion, such as A1 or A3 (no content or context) which make it impossible to assertain much about the article at all; or if the article had other problems such as it is entirely a copyvio, or is G3 vandalism or G1 patent nonsense (definition of obviously made up or gibberish word). --Jayron32|talk|contribs 13:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Avruch

7. What is the difference between a ban and a block?

A: A block is a way to "switch off" the editing option for a user name or an IP address. It is properly used to prevent damage to Wikipedia, for one example, to stop vandalism. It is NOT a punishment. A ban is a punishment, and is used to revoke the editing privilages of a person. Bans are often the result of ArbCom cases. Blocking is commonly used to enforce a ban, but other bans, such as requiring that a user avoides editing in a certain topic, are also possible. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 23:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

8. If another administrator removes material from an article and cites a BLP concern as the reason - but you believe the material does not violate BLP policy and should be included- what do you do?

A: 1) Attempt to start a discussion at the article's talk page. 2) Attempt to seek further input via WP:BLPN. 3) Attempt to seek further input via WP:RFC. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 23:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

9. If you wish to close an AfD that is still open after 7 days but you believe the consensus is against current policy, what action should you take?

A: If no one who has voted appears to be familiar with policy, there are some ways to handle it: 1) Comment myself, cite policy, and let another adminsitrator handle the closing of the discussion. 2) Relist for further comment, in hopes of generating a more robust discussion based on policy. 3) If an AFD receieves no substantive comment after several relists, it may be appropriate to keep the article as a "no consensus" keep and let it be renominated in the future. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 23:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

10. What is your opinion on administrator recall?

A: I have no opinion. I have read the link you provided on recall, and quite frankly, I don't have any feeling one way or the other. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 23:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


General comments[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Jayron32 before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Strong Support great editor. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support as nom Lara❤Love 03:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - very ready. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. (Would have been the) First support (but it's not. remind me to Pwn you, Blnguyen and Anonymous Dissident. LaraLove is exempt, she's the nom :) )! I've seen him around, and I have to say Jayron32 is a great editor. If you don't think so, well, your mother. :) J-ſtanContribsUser page 03:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong Support per the_undertow. the_undertow talk 03:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Classic. J-ſtanContribsUser page 03:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I've seen this editor in places like GA and FA discussions, and I am very pleased at what he does. Re everything else, knows what he is doing; article experience will only help him mediate and resolve content disputes. Strong support. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 03:29, 04 January 2008 (GMT)
  7. Support because I think you're a great content editor. I can't say I'm thrilled to see something like an AFD of Nelle Reagan. I mean, I'm happy you withdrew the AFD but that it ever seemed like a priority to you to delete a well-sourced article is disturbing to me. Nominations like these don't help Wikipedia; focus your energies on getting rid of non-verifiable content, rather than a well-researched article written by someone who took Ronald Reagan to FA. --JayHenry (talk) 04:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Great Wikipedian, and as long as the "delete button" isn't used too speedily, should also be an excellent admin. Walkerma (talk) 05:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support sysopping this outstanding New Hampshirite user. Húsönd 05:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Glad to give my support here. Maser (Talk!) 06:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support per the_undertow. Jayron, quite simply, is the bomb. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 06:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Well rounded. Royalbroil 06:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support-You look like an exceptional editor. I trust you will do good. Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 07:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Was going to support any way, per nominators, but the diff provided by Malleus [6] seals it. Good all round candidate with nothing in the history troubling enough to not see a net gain. Best Wishes. Pedro :  Chat  08:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Should've known... a new recruit for the Bathrobe Cabal. Would've opposed but I have to do what YellowMonkey says or I won't get a banana... :( — DarkFalls talk 08:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. Good and responsible contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Sure thing! Snowolf How can I help? 10:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support The two essays linked to in Lara's nom are insightful, compelling and firmly based in existing policy and practise. Spartaz Humbug! 11:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Rt. 11:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Glad to give my support. --Siva1979Talk to me 12:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support - of course. Addhoc (talk) 14:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. Good editor. Malinaccier (talk) 15:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support - looks fine to me --Herby talk thyme 15:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - Looks like you would make good use of the tools --Nate1481( t/c) 16:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Brilliant editor. Harland1 (t/c) 16:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support! Answer to question six shows that he has a firm grasp on CSD guidelines. Trustworthy contributor, meets all of my standards, I'm sure will use the tools well. Mr Senseless (talk) 16:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. An experienced editor. Acalamari 17:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support good editor. Archtransit (talk) 17:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support, good answers to all questions, seems very helpful and knowledgeable. I think this editor can be trusted with the mop. Dreadstar † 17:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. Excellent editor: well-rounded, sensible and trustworthy. Geometry guy 18:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hah: I support this RfA, spend most of a day fixing referencing problems with Tofu, and then Jayron delists it. Alas he was right: further proof that he will be a great admin. Geometry guy 20:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Strong Support An absolutely stellar candidate. VanTucky talk 19:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Bleh thought he was an admin Secret account 20:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support - Give em' the mop, Tiptoety talk 20:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Yep. - Philippe | Talk 20:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Strong support. Spebi 21:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Strong Support More than ready for the mop. Perfect Proposal Speak Out! 22:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Excellant knowledge of policy. S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s (Talk to Me) 22:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Strong support. I still occasionally look at your essay on orthodoxy and heresy. bibliomaniac15 01:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support impressive work. Pundit|utter 02:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Absolutely. GlassCobra 04:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support More than ready for the mop. --Sharkface217 04:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support without a doubt. Timmehcontribs 04:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Very strong support. He has helped me so much with tagging images properly, and he was very courteous to me in the process. I feel I should extend that back to him, and thus I support his adminship. — Cuyler91093 - Contributions 06:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. support No problems here, user understands policy well as shown by his/her answers above. --Hdt83 Chat 09:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Cliche, he's not one already support?Balloonman (talk) 11:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support - Dureo (talk) 12:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support yes, indeed a good candidate docboat (talk) 15:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support Great candidate. I've got no doubts. -- Mike (Kicking222) 18:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. 50th support Hopefully I don't run into edit conflict. NHRHS2010 Happy Holidays 18:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support Suprised he wasn't already an admin, etc. Epbr123 (talk) 18:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. A top-notch candidate. Majoreditor (talk) 19:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. The Transhumanist 19:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support. Per Geometry Guy and several others; no concerns here. Mike Christie (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support. This one was easy. Great track record on articles as well as user talk interface! Kukini hablame aqui 01:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support funny guy, really good when maintaining Wikipedia. Hecks yeah! —BoL 03:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Jawohl Jmlk17 07:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support I ain't seen nothing to worry about here, Jayron can be trusted with the tools. Good luck. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support Insert cliche about "already being one" here... From what I have seen, will make an excellent admin. Woody (talk) 14:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Mandatory I thought he already was contribution --Dweller (talk) 17:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support An excellent editor who has helped me multiple times in the past and helped me to become involved in the GA process. I'm sure he'll do great with the tools. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support Johnbod (talk) 02:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support Significant involvement on Wiki-related pages.--JForget 02:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support Will make a good admin, have seen his contributions in several areas. M3tal H3ad (talk) 03:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support What? I thought you were admin already! OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support - meets all my standards, great user page, nice answers. Bearian (talk) 22:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support Very good editor. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support for his excellent article contributions, communication skills, understanding of policy, and participation in processes of admin interest such as AfD. --Itub (talk) 14:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support. Good contributing editor. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 23:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support --Polaron | Talk 00:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support - good editor who seems to have good experience in areas useful to the project. I can honestly see this user deservedly getting unanimous support. John Carter (talk) 21:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support - good 'pedia builder cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
Neutral[edit]
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