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

Jclemens[edit]

Final (77/2/0); Closed as successful by WJBscribe at 05:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jclemens (talk · contribs) – Jclemens is a phenomenal contributor whom I have had the pleasure of watching grow over the past four months. I first met Jclemens on the Wasilla Assembly of God (WAG) page where he was dealing with one of the bigger political POV pushers of this past election cycle. When we first met, I wasn't sure about Jclemens. The first time I went to his talk page was to issue a warning! Wasilla AG is a totally non-notable church, that was in the news briefly because of Sarah Palin's former minister. The article was created primarily because EricDiesel was trying to push an agenda and Jclemens tried to counter Eric's agenda. Jclemens didn't believe (rightly) that the article deserved to exist, but it was in the news and survived an AFD. Unfortunately, when dealing with political articles during an election cycle, tempers are bound to flare an accusations are bound to be made. I questioned if anybody who was involved with controversial political articles this past year can pass an RfA. In fact, just two days ago, I told Jclemens right now it would be easier for me to write a strong oppose than a strong nomination. So what has changed??? Jclemens handled himself in contentious areas better than most people involved politically charged articles this past fall. Because he was involved in such contentious areas, I didn't want to do him an injustice and not do due dilligence in investigating him. The fact that he worked in a stressful area where people are prone to throw labels and epitaths around should not be grounds for failing an RfA, I wanted to determine the validity of the possible allegations leveled against him. Reading through his talk page, the articles talk pages, the talk pages of those he communicated with was a monumental task. It was particularly challenging because of the political rhetoric that clouded the issues. Prior to making this nomination I spent a personal record of ten hours vetting him and I've come to see a person who is an absolute asset to the community and can be trusted with the tools. One thing that should be noted is that once EricDiesel (aka Tautologist) was blocked left the project, the people who remained were able to work together and garner consensus on many of these controversial articles, this was (IMO) in part due to Jclemens efforts.

Since we first met, Jclemens has worked on making the Wasilla AG worthy of wikipedia, which lead to one of his eight barnstars. Despite initially resisting the article, he brought it to a condition that he placed it up as a Good Article Candidate. I've been continually impressed with his growth and development.

While he does use Huggle, over 85% of his 12000+ edits are manual. Among his contributions Jclemens can count 4 DYKs, 4 GA's, and a Featured List. He is also an active GAR reviewer where he's reviewed 38 articles and participates in XfD's. But the things that really caught my attention are: 1) the 11 articles Jclemens saved at AFD. And 2) Jclemens is not afraid to help out where needed, he participates with Third Opinion. I reviewed a number of his 3O's and I really found them to be thoughtful and insightful.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 05:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Jclemens (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: Blocks and backlogs. The thing that has compelled me to submit to an RfA is the evenings I have spent chasing vandals around, by hand or with Huggle, with no one keeping up with AIV to block them. That is, I would like the authority to apply WP:RBI to this sort of behavior. Backlogs, on the other hand, are a part of Wikipedia life. I see myself as capable of handling AfD closures and RFPP requests right away, but I anticipate taking on new areas as I develop confidence and comfort in them—there are enough clear-cut needs that I believe by handling the "routine" admin work, I can free more experienced admins to handle the more contentious or nuanced areas until I'm sufficiently experienced to tackle them on my own.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Several of them have been mentoned in the nom. I helped Cornucopia drive List of Veronica Mars episodes to FL, and wrote Thermal imaging camera from a redirect to a GA (with a DYK in the process, where a picture I took accompanied it on the main page) without substantial help--both satisfying achievements. But the more administrator-relevant areas I'd choose to highlight are:
  1. GA reviews. Since I started doing these, I've started to develop my own style and rhythym. I work with topics that interest me, and enjoy collaborating with authors in a give-and-take. My goal in a GA review is to get the article to GA by being an effective coach and objective evaluator. I limit myself to a couple at a time so that I can provide regular and prompt feedback. I think GA is the most important general-purpose content review on Wikipedia, because it's both a step on the way to FA and the only structured outside review many modest articles will ever receive.
  2. Article rescue. There are a lot of "walking wounded" articles that need intensive care, not a coup de grace. I advocate AfD nominators conducting a search for reliable sources on articles that lack them, but someone still needs to look for sources when that doesn't happen. In addition to the 11 articles I list as "rescues", I have jumped into AfDs, posted the results of a few searches, and that motivated other editors to keep the article. I wish I had time to edit those sources into everything myself.
  3. Third opinions. It's hard to go to the talk page of an article you don't care about, read a debate between two editors you've never worked closely with, and try and deliver some Solomonic insight that amounts to more than "He's right, here's why." I find it provides me some interesting perspectives on gudelines and challenges me to improve both my gudeline knowledge and mediation skills.
All three of these areas have given me insight into policies and guidelines, exposure to articles I might not otherwise have encountered, and opportunities to improve or assist in the improvement of existing content.
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: Of all the editors who've been involved in the diverse areas I have, who has not? I have had particular challenges with two specific editors: User:Hrafn and EricDiesel/User:Tautologist. I encountered Hrafn in his efforts to delete a spate of Unification Church-related articles, and found his behaviour quite irritating. Specifically, he would both nominate an article for deletion and then aggressively patrol it, tagging and often reverting other contributors' efforts to satisfy his objections. I ceased interacting with him when it became clear that doing so was not bringing out the best in me; while I like to stand up for the rights of minority religious groups, I was not personally obligated to help defend Unification Church articles. He later left Wikipedia. EricDiesel/Tautologist (hereafter E/T; he renamed mid-Palin controversy) came to WP to contribute to Sarah Palin related issues. I politely but firmly opposed what I perceived to be coatracks and BLP violations in Thomas Muthee and Wasilla Assembly of God, which is where I met Balloonman. After the Palin-furor had died down and consensus was going against him, E/T was found (per my RFCU) to have engaged in sockpuppetry to avoid 3RR and reinsert content not consistent with BLP. He has not returned since his block, and I have subsequently cleaned up his messes.
Dealing with these cases has taught me to focus on policy rather than personal feelings. I cope with the stress by doing other things—often, intentionally avoiding the contentious article(s) and contributing elsewhere on Wikipedia, sometimes by spending time with my wife and kids, taking solace in WP:TIND and WP:DGAF (Unless BLP is involved, and then WP:GRAPEVINE applies).

Question from CIreland

4. You have said that you wish to work at WP:RFPP. It is a common occurence that an editor involved in an edit war will make his third revert and then attempt to game the system by quickly making a request for full protection. How would you deal with such a request?
A: Each case would have to be judged on its own merits. While asking for outside help is preferrable to a 3RR violation, I'm certainly not going to be blind to a potential attempt to game the system. I'd be tempted to protect the other wrong version, but would probably just AGF and either protect the current version, or a version that predated the edit war, per WP:PREFER. All of this assumes that there is nothing "special" (BLP, etc.) about the edit war. If this were a long-running dispute, I'd be inclined to review past administrator actions and comments—few disputes are so urgent that taking a few minutes to sort things out is a bad idea. Jclemens (talk) 05:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]


Support[edit]
  1. beat the Nom Support Good, clueful user who will make a good mop-pusher. Sam Blab 01:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. Rather than clutter this RFA with the arguments for-and-against, my views (and the views of what feels like half the internet) on Jclemens's suitability for the role were discussed here at some length</understatement>. (Ignore the insane flamewars above and below the thread; for some reason my talkpage seems to have taken on the position of "toilet wall of Wikipedia" today.) – iridescent 01:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Plus one. I've always assumed jclemens was an admin. I remember vividly the different "opinions" expressed during the whole "Palin implosion"; the warring, the mudslinging, the fork creation. (good times). Jclemens showed then that he has a calm demeanor, a logic based approach to editing, and an inherent fairness about his edits. I looked through his contribs yesterday or today after a post on my talk regarding a potential rfa for Jc. If I was nominating people, I would've asked him if I could nominate him. He'll be a very good admin because of his content contribs, his tact under fire, and his ability to navigate controversial areas and troublesome POV editing with grace, directness, and precision. Strong support. Keeper ǀ 76 01:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. An excellent user with whom I have had a good time working with. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 01:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. No questions asked, he's trustworthy and civil. He should be granted access, as I can't see it being anything less than a net positive. Master&Expert (Talk) 01:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support I must admit, when I saw the section heading on your talk page for your RfA nomination, I thought you'd just been trolled, but then I was suprised (and happier) to find it was an RfA nom and not what the heading suggested. You're an excellent user, you have a clean block log, great contributions and a nice personality. I believe that you would be an asset to the comunity if you were granted the tools. Also per my RfA criteria Foxy Loxy Pounce! 02:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And what was wrong with my section title ;-) ---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 02:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, associating Sadomasochism and administrators is a great idea ;) Foxy Loxy Pounce! 08:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, you have to be pretty sick to want to subject yourself to an RfA... and even sicker to nom somebody... so I think it is an apt comparison ;-)---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 13:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong support. Impressive candidate. You've done great on Wikipedia and will do better with the tools. Good luck! Malinaccier (talk) 02:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Duh-uh support! Well-rounded, and, like Balloonman, I saw this guy (partially) go from a beginning editor to what he is now. Good luck, I really hope you pass! —Ceran ♦ (talk) 02:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support I would suggest you stop posting welcoming messages to IP's that have only made one edit —it really serves no purpose as many IP's will only ever make one edit, they change frequently, and the links are more geared for accounts. Also if every IP that ever edited was welcomed the database would explode unnecessarily — but no real problems here. Icewedge (talk) 02:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Speedy Keep - Notability clearly asserted. — Realist2 02:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - I assumed you already were an admin, or didn't want to be. You've certainly got the ability. Reyk YO! 03:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. I'm familiar with Jclemens from the Third opinion project during the past five months and support this nomination to put the tools in good hands. — Athaenara ✉ 03:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Strong Support - I've had this RfA preemptively watchlisted ever since I've saw it on Ballonman's talk page (TPS I know, but get over it). I like fish. RockManQ (talk) 03:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. ...that the Greater Alaskan Gooney Bird has a single mating season that lasts 365 days? (5x expansion, self-nom)...uh, is this where we do the DYK nominations? Oh, sorry, wrong queue. But while I am here: Support for someone who is more than ready for adminship. Ecoleetage (talk) 04:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support - Oh yeah. Flea market. It's just like, a mini mall. — neuro(talk) 04:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support I was under the impression that he was already an admin :o He's a very careful editor, not likely to mess up (definitely won't delete the main page, as they say...). Got enough experience and also seems to have a very good understanding of policy. He should definitely get the tools. Chamal talk 04:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. A great candidate. I've seen him around and his work is good. He's civil and knowledgeable. He'd make a fine admin. Meets my criteria. Useight (talk) 05:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Absolutely Far calmer than me, which I'll admit is faint praise, but he's a good candidate for the bit. Also, thought he was one. Also, works in that icky part of the wiki that I wouldn't touch w/ a ten foot pole. Protonk (talk) 06:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support I believe it is wise. MBisanz talk 06:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Very appropriate to be a sysop Leujohn (talk) 08:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support - as above; I don't need to repeat it. Alright, I can't help myself... I thought he was an admin already. - Richard Cavell (talk) 08:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Passes the common sense check. Stifle (talk) 10:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Absolutely. Have had good experiences with editor, who handles very controversial topics with professionalism and spunk. FlyingToaster 10:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support As per track.Good Editor.See no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Yes sir! —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 11:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. Good contributions and level-headed. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support - trustworthy editor and vandal fighter. PhilKnight (talk) 11:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oh yes - I've seen this editor around (though I don't think we've ever really interacted; I could be wrong) and have always thought he's reasonable and thoughtful. Donnez le mop. //roux   12:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. good 'pedia builder, and calm, by the looks of things...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support as candidate generally makes good arguments. Only the "vote" in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Childe (World of Darkness) is not really sufficiently explained and we were on opposite sides in someone else's relatively recent Request for Adminship, but by and large it is more than apparent that the candidate mostly "gets it" and is here to build an encyclopedia, help out those who are also here to do so, and assume good faith. I can think of well over a half dozen reasons to support and that is more than enough for me. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 14:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Duh. J.delanoygabsadds 16:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Duh. iMatthew 16:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Yes! Support! abf /talk to me/ 17:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support I like your work with Article Rescue. SpencerT♦C 17:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support, albeit with one minor reservation. IMO, the Wasilla Assembly of God article wan't ready for GA status due to problems with focus. But that aside, I am confident that Jclemens will make a good sysop. He's well-rounded and knows how to work constructively with other editors. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 18:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. I am quite pleased with this editor's demeanour at AfD; the administrative ranks would certainly benefit from competent and clueful article rescuers. the skomorokh 20:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Qualified. I have no doubt that Jclemens will make a good admin!! America69 (talk) 20:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. tl;dr (per nom) Support per Synergy 22:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Strongly, and he konws why. Giggy (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Heck yes no question at all. Thingg⊕⊗ 00:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support – I was probably one of the first people Jclemens met. Since then, I've seen him to be a very productive editor on Wikipedia. I'm very impressed with his article and WP:AFD work especially. Jclemens will do just fine as an administrator. Very happy to support. – RyanCross (talk) 03:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support - I have a good opinion of this editor as calm and reasonable. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Another editor who I thought was already an admin. – sgeureka t•c 11:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Great contributions, trustworthy too! --Banime (talk) 12:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Sssssupport - Great user, trustworthy, and would make a good admin. Xclamation point 14:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. Trustworthy candidate. DiverseMentality 18:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. macy 20:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. YES!! We Alaskans are owning RfA this week. All my interactions with this user has been positive, and there's a fair chance I know his family so I'd better !vote for him or they'll track me down. L'Aquatique[talk] 23:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support - No problems here. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support - Based on my dealings with him Reviewing the Wasilla AG page, I have no doubt in this users ability to use the tools responsively. \ / (⁂) 23:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support per he's got the record, and also a good nomination from a reliable nominator. Would prefer more questions were asked of these recent candidates though. This is too easy. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Would prefer more questions were asked of these recent candidates though. This is too easy. --- ROFLMAO!---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 06:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support - Based on my experience with him on Good Article reviews. BOZ (talk) 06:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support No concerns - plenty of WP:CLUE and will only be a further asset with the tools. Pedro :  Chat  11:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support - All the chronic opposers are supporting, so obviously a good candidate indeed. Also, I've always seen good things from Jclemens. لennavecia 12:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. After reviewing the oppose and checking out the candidate's contributions, I am convinced the problem raised was an isolated incident born of frustration. We're all human and will occasionally act in a human (imperfect) manner. I can find no indication that the candidate has continued to pursue a grudge or would in the future. However, looking over his contributions I see a continual dedication to the principles and improvement of Wikipedia. Vassyana (talk) 02:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support per most folk above me and because the candidate has a surprisingly low cock-up quotient. CIreland (talk) 04:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support despite a rather confusing nom. "This is a good editor, but I told him two days ago that I'd oppose him because he worked on a contentious article. So what's changed? Well, I looked at his edits, and he's a good editor." Er....well okay then. Yet another of Balloonman's interesting and roundabount "contentious" noms, but I'll obviously not hold that against the candidate, as he does indeed seem to be suitable. GlassCobra 11:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, for clarity, I said it would be easier to write a strong oppose than a strong nom---and it would have been. I could have written a strong oppose without digging into his history/background, it took some effort to dig into the history and events surrounding some of the contentious areas Jclemens has worked. But being easier to oppose, does not mean that it would have been right to do so.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 16:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support I've seen you around, and I like the cut of your jib. Zagalejo^^^ 16:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support Yet another awesome editor and soon-to-be admin. LittleMountain5 17:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support with one reservation. I would prefer to have seen a diplomatic response to Tautologist's question, than to see a block warning template. Not enough to oppose over. I trust Jclemens with the tools.Wronkiew (talk) 17:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support. No problems here. Tan | 39 20:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Seems competent; no obvious trust issues. Opposition NPOV accusations are unsubstantiated. Support. AGK 23:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Incivility accusations rather than NPOV one unlike your claim, which are substantiated and the one that the candidate already expected if opposer comes up.--00:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
    The above comment was from Caspian Blue, I think he signed it, but did so with 5 tilde's by acceident.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 02:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I was in fact referring to Coalesce-laugh's argument, in the oppose section below. On the point of civility problems, however: I really see nothing that concerns me. Indeed, Jclemens offers some candid responses to Hrafn; although I am loathe to comment to any great extent on a now-closed matter, it does appear he had at least some grounds for doing so. Being an administrator requires a willingness to not beat around the bush; whilst I would advise the candidate to be wary of crossing the line between candidness and incivility, I still see no cause for concern. Thanks for pointing out the arguments I'd missed, but having considered them, my support does stand. AGK 18:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the clarification. The oppose from an obvious sock has been discounted, so I automatically thought you referred to the others in the party. However, I regrettfully disgree with your opinion for the already addressed reasons below.--Caspian blue 19:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I respect that absolutely. Your interpretation of the events that transpired in that AfD is not completely unreasonable. I do nevertheless maintain that a wider analysis of this candidate shows him to be hard-working and very reliable; one heated discussion is not enough, in my mind, to warrant the rejection of a very reasonable candidate for sysopship. I sense we may not make much progress by bouncing our opinion off one another for several paragraphs, however. :) AGK 21:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support, for excellent work resolving disputes. BradV 03:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support Seems like a great candidate. :-) SoWhy 07:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support - I have no reason not to support such a helpful contributor.--Flewis(talk) 11:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. support A good editor with sensible opinions about policy, and the ability to deal with differences. DGG (talk) 12:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support - I do not get what the opposition is about; I see no problems and lots of editing work from this user. Therefore I support. Bearian (talk) 18:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support - JS (chat) 23:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Strong keep per above rationale. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D 02:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Strong Support: You didnt tell me you are a not an admin yet ? :P I like your article rescue help intentions !!. Something that I also do as much as I can. Best wishes -- Tinu Cherian - 06:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Strong Support Very Experienced edits and this user could make a great admin. Good luck [ Rhodes416 ] [Talk] 09:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  74. No More Beat the Nom Supports with the holidays I don't know if I'll be able to visit this page again before it closes, so I'd better support. And um, oh yeah, I support 100% per nom ;-)---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 14:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Good user. Acalamari 18:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support. One of (at least three) good adminship nominations open at the moment. A helpful editor who will use the tools well in my view. All my experiences have been positive. Geometry guy 21:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support, clearly a great user who will use the tools well. Wizardman 05:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose per A1, candidate's bickering and incivility on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Kaufmann and poor nom statement. The candidate is a vandal fighter, so he surely needs the blocking tool if he become an admin. However, well, after seeing the attack to his disputer on the AFD, I'm not sure he would not abuse the tool when he would be in dispute. The candidate's behaviors on the AFD is quite a major disappointment; teasing his disputer, quoting WP:Don't-give-a-fuckism to attack him. Well, not a good model in civility. As for the nominator's statement, I get that one of nominators' job for their candidates is to woo and glorify their candidates' assets and achievements in front of voters. However, the first lengthy paragraph just fills with a negative projection of the nominator's "own" evaluation on a user who was disputing with the candidate. That rather gave me a disturbing image to the candidate (calling one disputer a POV pusher could be equally applied to the other). After some research, the named editor is indeed a SPA with a strong agenda[1] and "possibly" used a sock[2]. However, RFA is all about how the candidate has behaved what thought he thinks, not about a place to present how the nominator thinks. With these reasons, I can't support the candidate.--Caspian blue 21:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've responded to Caspian Blue's concerns at his talk page if other editors are interested in reading a detailed account of this incident from my perspective. Jclemens (talk) 22:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The nominator's job isn't to "woo and glorify their candidates' assets and achievements," but to present a full picture of the candidate. The nominators first and foremost job is to the community, not the candidate! The nom is declaring that they vetted the candidate and has a strong sense of who that candidate is. In making a nom, they are saying, "I've looked at the candidate and I like what I see." To this end, the nom should include, but is not limited to: 1) what did the nominator did to vett the candidate, 2) How did the nominator/candidate meet, 3) what were the nom's initial perspective on the candidate, and did they change, 4) what are the weaknesses of the candidate and how/why/what did the nom do to get comfortable with those weaknesses. To this end, IMO, the nom did exactly what it should. User:Balloonman/How_to_nominate_somebody_for_RfA---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 23:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The comment regarding RFA's nom of mine is a reaction to the mention of the phenomenal contributor. Sorry but your nom is poorly presented in my opinion because the statement only gave me a very bad impression on Jclemens. The first statement by nominators is a first impression on the candidate if voters have no previous interaction with him. Besides, why is so important to mention the time you spent for researching' on his contributions and as to your friend's response to your nom?(I'm not requiring your answer). The nom should emphasize and summarize the candidate's contributions, not you. The short second and third passages are rather very helpful to figure out what he has contributed to Wikipedia--Caspian blue 23:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong Oppose - too religiously orientated. WP needs more NPOv editors - not fundamentalist, gun-toting nutbags. Religious upbringing leads this user to a biased opinion: [3][4][5][6][7]. User is too immature to handle the tools. --Coalesce-laugh (talk) 11:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    User has been blocked for disruption. --Bongwarrior (talk) 11:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh. For those of you looking for a puzzle or a laugh, feel free to look at the diffs and try and determine how they might support those assertions. I'm guessing that this is someone I've dealt with before. Jclemens (talk) 15:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably not, his first 6 edits (ever) were to oppose 5 different RfA candidates, which is why it appears that Bongwarrior indented his !vote for disruption. (The sixth being to fix an oppose.)---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 15:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Clearly this editor has been here before - perhaps we should try to find out if they're using other accounts abusively? Master&Expert (Talk) 06:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. You've practically admitted baiting User:Hrafn (now retired) on Caspian's talk page: "My objective at the Kaufmann RfA was to bring out Hrafn's contentious and less than civil nature, without myself violating any guidelines or policies." Despite that, you were eventually told by a third party that you were "over the line". Creating a toxic atmosphere is not what's expected from admins. You've also made a vague statement about Hrafn that essentially places most the blame for your bad behavior on him "Others have had negative interactions with Hrafn....". Those inclined to read Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Hrafn will note that most of the accusations against Hrafn were baseless. Pcap ping 22:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't (please!) want to start a long thread here, but I don't see the candidate posting - or even mentioned - even once on the thread you cite. – iridescent 23:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to have a problem with comprehension. Jclemes said he wasn't involved in thread, but he did bring it up to discredit Hrafn. Never mind that User:Firefly322, which started that ANI thread, is now blocked for WP:HARASSMENT. Something about half-truths comes to mind... Pcap ping 23:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The only clarification I'd like to make in response is that a third party told me I had gone too far because I sought his advice and he gave it. It's my hope that my transparency in this process, awareness of when I may be losing my objectivity, efforts to seek outside counsel, and willingness to abide by such counsel demonstrate that I use my mistakes—and I've never claimed to be without them—as learning and improvement opportunities. Jclemens (talk) 18:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    General reminder, as this discussion seems to be creeping down that path: Keep discussion civil and unheated, please. AGK 18:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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