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

Jeepday[edit]

Final (45/9/7); Closed as successful by WjBscribe at 17:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeepday (talk · contribs) - I bring myself to RfA to ask if the community believes I am ready to be trusted with the administrator tools. I have made more then 10,000 edits since I became a named Wikipedia editor in October 2006, User:Jeepday has been my only username on any Wikimedia Foundation wiki. The motivation for my contribution's to Wikipedia is to help create a quality well referenced body of knowledge. Wikipedia is a great place to start any quest for knowledge, as a reader or a contributor. I look forward to being recognized as a trusted contributer and being granted the additional technical features that aid in maintenance of Wikipedia. Jeepday (talk) 15:10, 6 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 have read a few RfA's and while in theory a successful candidate for adminship could answer "None", I have not see it. I beleive what this question is really asking is "Why do you want the admin tools and what will you do with them if they are granted?" I beleive this is particularly true for the self nomination. This is my answer to what I beileve the question is and why I choose today to submit a self RfA -
One of the active fixup projects is Wikipedia:Most wanted articles it is an attempt to build red link articles with multiple incoming links. Many of these articles have been deleted by Prod or AfD previously. One of the admin tools is the ability to see deleted articles (presumably including history versions). It would be extremely helpful to have access to the deleted article when considering recreation of an article. As time progresses I will likely merge out into other admin tasks in WP:AfD and edit protecting or blocking related to vandalism.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: The articles I feel best about are on my Vanity List of Major Edits, I only add to the list now if the article has been posted at Did you know?. The majority of my significant article contributions have been transportation or nature related. Other then RC patrol, currently my activities center around Active Wiki Fixup Projects with the majority of those edits to obscure articles.


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: When I was a newbie I was involved in stressfully learning curve about the difference between talk page content and main space content at Talk:Off-road vehicle (now in the archives), concerning a Edward Abbey qoute. In the end result is recorded at Talk:Off-road vehicle/Archive 1#Consensus. Later and prior to being a founding member of the project Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles I was active at WP:AfD and involved in many discussions on templates ((Refimprove)) and ((Unreferenced)). All of which progressed much less stressfully. In July 2007 I made a proposal at Wikipedia:Requests for verification which was not successful or stressful. Now if I feel stress building I go back to Wikipedia:The Most Important Thing Possible and Wikipedia:There is no deadline for a refresher breath.

Questions from Avruch

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

A ban is a long term community decision, while a block is a non punitive admin measure to protect Wikipedia over the short term. Jeepday (talk) 16:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


5. 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 WP:BLP boils down to WP:V, the support (or lack) of WP:RS for the content is the decision maker. Jeepday (talk) 16:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification a number of editors have found my answer here lacking. As I mentioned in a post to User:Faithlessthewonderboy here Diff I thought the answer was clear that "in this situation the key point is are there solid references to support the content". Here is my train of though, the question does not indicate any area of BLP as the concern. I am assuming this is well written encyclopedic text and there is no Point of View issues, as an editor would generally call that separately. The key to part of BLP is not if the material is good bad or ugly from the persons perspective, the key is the information an accurate representation of referenced supplied -->{WP:BLP boils down to WP:V). Another key point is the quality of the reference Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. If the only reference are from some myspace blog they do not support any claims, but if there are reference from the both the New York Times and the BBC reporting the same information that is in the article then the content is supported -->(the support (or lack) of WP:RS for the content is the decision maker.}. What either I or the other editor believes or feels about text is irrelevant what matters is does the content accurately and neutrally represent the truth as verified by reliable sources. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is not a tabloid or soap box. But neither is it censored, it contains useful and validate information. My last BLP related edit was here Diff which for some reason I marked my edit summary with WP:BIO instead of WP:BLP. Of note had the reference provided supported the content I would have cut back to not more then a sentence in the article, the quantity of the BLP content was significantly out of proportion to the content. Of note I did not search for references to support the claims before removing the text to the talk page, relying instead on WP:PROVEIT. For most questions of WP:V (other then BLP) in theory the burden is on the editor who wants to include the content the reality is that community tends to place the a burden on an editor who wants to remove text to first make a good faith attempt to find references, in this case I chose not to make that attempt. Jeepday (talk) 04:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further question on this: If an admin removes the material on grounds of a BLP violation, what would you do. The question is about your intended behavior, not so much about a theoretical/philosophical issue.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would follow policy, and the policy is that if content is deleted for BLP concerns consensus must be reached before it can be restored. When the question arises it should be discussed with the removing admin either on the talk page or by email. In this scenario I believe that the content does not violate BLP, presumable because it is supported by references (I am all about supporting content with references) and meets the NPOV guidelines. If I am not able to reach consensus with the removing admin and I continue to feel that the content is appropriate my next move is to take a break from it for a couple days and think about it, give other admins (if involved) and respected editors a chance to comment on the discussion. I might ask an editor who I respect but occasionally disagree with for their perspective. As long as consensus to restore text is lacking the text must remain removed. If after my break I still feel strongly that the text should be included in the article I would take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review for formal consideration of un-deletion with a well prepared case of policy and references. If the WP:DRV is unsuccessful then it is time to reconcile with myself that the content is not appropriate for Wikipedai. Jeepday (talk) 03:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

6. 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 I don't, I let someone else address it. Jeepday (talk) 16:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clarify - Based on User:Charitwo's Neutral support in response to this answer, I would like to clarify my thought - Avruchs question assumes that I have a desire to take an action to close the case, when in fact I would not have a desire to take that action. If there is a conflict between what I believe the consensus is and my understanding of the current policy, then Wikipedia:There is no deadline kicks in, I research, I watch, I learn. There is no reason for me to going stomping into AfD and close the case where I beleive there is an unresolved conflict. Jeepday (talk) 17:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


7. What is your opinion on administrator recall?

A I do not have an opinion Jeepday (talk) 16:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After some research to learn about WP:Administrators open to recall. It would seem to be a good faith attempt for a low level, semi formal, arbitration resolution process. It would seem that any admin who voluntarily places themselves in Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall would probably have a very low likelihood of actually needing to be involved in the process. All admins are subject to recall of their privileges by the community regardless of if they are "open" to the idea or not. I am somewhat surprised to see that it does not appear to have been proposed as an official policy. Jeepday (talk) 18:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Malinaccier

8. Upon becoming an admin, how much time would you spend on specifically admin-related activities compared to just editing the encyclopedia itself?

A. As I mentioned in my answer to general question 1, I am requesting admin tools specifically to assist in creation and recreation of some of the more challenging articles. Other admin specific activities would be secondary to that. I plan a slow merge into those other tasks. My main drive always has been and I expect always will be a quality well referenced body of knowledge, and that means article contributions. Jeepday (talk) 20:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

9. When blocking a user, when should block email be used?

A. This option should not be used by default when blocking an account, but rather it should only be used in cases of abuse of the "email this user" feature. When enabled, efforts should be taken to ensure that the user's talk page remains unprotected and that the user is aware of other avenues (such as the unblock-en-l mailing list) through which he can discuss the block. Jeepday (talk) 20:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

10.When blocking an IP address, when should you notify the Wikimedia Foundation Communications Committee?

A. When blocking one of the address listed here Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses#Sensitive IP addresses or the IP of a major corporation. These blocks like all others, should be of short duration in keeping with preventing damage over the short term. Care should be taken in wording of the block as it will be seen and commented on by the press. Jeepday (talk) 20:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Spevw
11. What did you learn or what do think about ArbCom, shown here (election statement and voting results)[1] and [2]. This isn't meant to be a hard question. It's very open ended. I didn't vote for you because I am too new (just under 150 mainspace edits and 300 total).

A I would not say you are new, having been an active member since June of 2007. You just don't edit much, let me suggest the project stubsensor, it is good productive work to start getting more editing experience. What I learned at the ArbCom is if you volunteer you should be prepared to provide multiple examples of conflict resolution on wikipedia. I have not checked but I can imagine that I probably set some kind of record for that loss :) I was very amazed at the number of questions on ArbCom/policy setting which is clearly out of scope of ArbCom per Wikipedia policy. I was also surprised not to see a number of questions about conflict resolution and research approaches which would address items in scope of ArbCom. 22:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeepday (talk • contribs)

Optional Question from Dustihowe  Talk 

12. As you are a self-nom, you are open to criticism from some users who feel that self-nom's are power hungry individuals. Some of these users will go as far as to simply vote oppose to all self-nom's despite eligibility, stats, and expierence. There is one case that has come up here recently, where a user would simply attack all self-nom's. Had you been an admin at this time, how would you have handled this situation? Dustihowe  Talk  20:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can you provide a reference so I can review the case or would you prefer a response to the general situation? 01:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Here is where a Rfc took place on the situation....[[3]] Dustihowe  Talk  20:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Speaking only to voting on self-noms by User:Kmweber) - If you have looked at User:Jeepday you have probably seen the quote "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it." The user is entitled to vote however they please on what ever criteria they beleive is most important to them. As an admin or not I would support his right to express himself in the way he has chosen which does not appear in it's self to be harmful or hateful (though it might seem misguided). If I were to take a position in the discussion I think that Outside view by Neil has some great points. If I were to become involved in the discussion with User:Kmweber on this topic, I would likely point out that it his approach is probably not having the impact he appears to desire and would ask if he would apply the same criteria to users who are nominated by others after posting themselves at Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Requests for Coaching or otherwise actively inviting a nomination. Jeepday (talk) 05:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Question from Cfufu
13. If someone were canvassing, whether for a RFA or something else, how long would you block the editor for? 1 month? Forever? What if it were in one setting (1 day) and not defying any warnings against canvassing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cfufu (talk • contribs)

A Canvassing in it's self may be non-disruptive, in such a case blocking would not be indicated at all. Damaging or disruptive behavior may be cause for blocking, but only to prevent continued activity. Blocking is a last option, used only to stop on going damage or disruption. The first option is communication with the editor in question and trying change the behavior to meet policy Wikipedia:Canvassing. If the editor is not responsive to requests and contunes disruptive behavior a block of a few hours may be indicated after other methods to modify the behavior have failed. Jeepday (talk) 02:52, 13 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/Jeepday before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

I noticed that, which is why I stayed neutral, and suggested the user review those questions. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated answers to questions 3 and 4. I suspect the answer you are looking for at question 3 is ((relist)) but the question is what would Jeepday do?, and I answered accordingly. I feel that my answers to question 1 and 2 are short but concise and have not had significant requests for expansion of them. Jeepday (talk) 18:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support[edit]
  1. Jeepday appears to be an excellent volunteer and would do well to have a few extra buttons. He's written some great articles, and while I haven't yet had the pleasure to talk to the fellow directly, he seems to be very affable and easy to communicate with. In looking at his conversations with other volunteers, he's shown some great dispute resolution skills. In the referenced conversation, he and the other fellow were able to work out their differences by citing policies and maintaining a friendly demeanour (admittedly, the diff is hardly a dispute, but was the only semblance of one I could find given his seemingly naturally friendly manner, hehe). gaillimhConas tá tú? 16:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, A good editor. -Icewedge (talk) 16:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - trustworthy and helpful editor. Addhoc (talk) 17:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - good editor; I actually thought you were already an admin.   jj137 ♠ 18:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong Support - will be very good at what he does --n1yaNt 19:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support: I am glad that Jeepday decided to further review some of the questions above, and IMO, that reflects positively on his behavior. Having positively addressed my concerns below (in the neutral section) I am happy to support this users' candidacy for adminship. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - Good editor; I'm pleased that your answers to the questions have been revised. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Answers could be a bit longer, but I don't see anything in them that is particularly troubling. I seem to recall encountering Jeepday a time or two, no complaints about anything I've seen from him. Mop up! Gromlakh (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Good answers to questions, especially the one that always comes up about blocks and bans. Seems like a good editor Majorly (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support John254 20:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - Rudget. 21:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Strong support based on the answer to question 6. Demonstrates the common sense an admin needs in one fell swoop and cuts to the heart of what a wiki actually is. We are allowed to deliberately leave things for others to do. Hiding T 22:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support not many concerns here. NHRHS2010 Happy Holidays 23:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Seems like a good editor to me (my first RfA vote), so good luck! BanRay 23:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. Excellent user. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Changed to Support. Answers to my questions, and clarification on Q4 have removed any doubts I had about this editor. Malinaccier (talk) 02:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. No reason to oppose. Looks like a good editor. Acalamari 03:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. Looking through the user's talk page and contributions, the canidate seems to be well-reasoned, mature and has the ability of self-reflection. He also seems to have a good understanding of deletion policy. The answers also give me confidence that the net gain here will be positive. SorryGuy  Talk  03:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. Nom appears thoughtful and trustworthy. -- Iterator12n Talk 06:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Yes. Good experiences with this user, and thoughtful janitors make good administrators. Dekimasuよ! 08:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support A good user. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Siva1979 (talk • contribs) 12:40, 7 January 2008 [4]
    Shouldn't this be signed? S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s (Talk to Me) 20:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support He needs to be able browse deleted articles, and I believe he can be trusted to do so responsibly. The Transhumanist 12:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. Seems to have a clear need for the extra admin buttons and I'm sure wouldn't abuse them. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Jeepday's answers seem bizarre: I've never seen anyone ask for admin tools primarily to view deleted revisions for the purpose of deletion review, but it is important. The history of article contributions makes this an easy choice. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 14:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support I misunderstood your response to question 6, ignore my comment under neutral, you have my full support! Mr Senseless (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support The question isn't whether he "needs" the tools (nobody does - any non-admin can be a useful Wikipedian), the question is whether now that he's volunteered to do some extra work he can be trusted to do it. It looks to me that he can. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Longer answers might have been better, but is still a good user. S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s (Talk to Me) 20:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Already voted at number 22 above. Jmlk17 05:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. The answer to Q5 is "discuss it with them on their talk page". Neıl ☎ 09:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Neil, I did not see the edit war potential of recent edits in the question. The majority of my non-RC Patrol article work is on obscure articles that have been abandoned. I tend to make changes per policy, leave a note, and move on. Jeepday (talk) 12:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support, appears trustworthy enough. Kusma (talk) 10:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support (insert standard text here involving surprise this editor isn't already an admin). I've encountered Jeepday on several wikiprojects, and feel the mop will not be abused. --Fabrictramp (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. The ArbCom run was premature, but my dealings with the candidate have shown him to be a sensible person who is willing to discuss things, and the admin roster needs people with that attitude. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Since everyone below is citing the answers as oppose rationale, my support rationale is- Excellent answer to Q6. :) But more seriously, appears to be thoughtful and sensible from a quick glance at contribs. - TwoOars 15:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Actually, I like the answers given - even the short forms. No pomposity. Past history establishes trustworthiness. docboat (talk) 15:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support - fine experience, meets my standards, over 10 thousand edits. No concerns. Bearian (talk) 22:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Great user, track record is fine. Questions don't matter much, lots of people have talked a good show and delivered nothing. Jeepday's record of actually doing stuff will hold him in good stead. Enough of the Mark Webber admins. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support No concerns, and it was very noble to run for ArbCom. Here's my trust. GlassCobra 16:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. Some answers are confusing, but I place my trust in you. OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support No evidence to suggest that the user will abuse or misuse the tools. [[Guest9999 (talk) 06:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)]][reply]
  40. Support, seems level-headed enough, I'm confident that they won't misuse the tools. Lankiveil (talk) 04:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  41. Support It's no big deal being an admin, and this candidate seems willing to be accountable to the community. We need more of that quality in the admin ranks. --SSBohio 15:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support, I have reviewed this user's contributions and I think they will make a fine administrator. No admin is expected to be an expert on all policy matters right out of the gate - just make sure to ask lots of questions. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 22:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. Changing from neutral. After reading this editor's contributions over the last few days, I think that even though I have issues concerning his experience, I don't see anything to suggest he will abuse the tools knowingly or unknowningly. Trusilver (talk) 07:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support - Plenanty of experence. I am pleased to see that Jeepday is happy to not just jump into the deep end but insted build up gradualy in areas where he is less familar. Tiddly-Tom 13:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. User:Dorftrottel 16:06, January 13, 2008
Oppose[edit]
  1. Unsatisfactory answers. –Pomte 17:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. Great editor, but the answers are very short, and the answer to Avruch's 3rd question is really worrying. Change to support. Malinaccier (talk) 17:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? One wouldn't necessarily expect a new administrator to perform a difficult AFD closure which presents a clear conflict between consensus and policy. It's acceptable to defer such actions to more experienced administrators. John254 21:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The candidate should have specified this in their answer, not simply said "I wouldn't." It doesn't matter anyway, because my questions have been answered removing any doubts I had of the candidate in the first place. Malinaccier (talk) 02:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weak oppose per initial answers to Q6 and Q7, lack of answer to Q5, minimal need for the tools, little anti-vandalism activity. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 21:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. Answer to Q8 doesn't show a real need to become an admin. Q9 is a direct quote from WP:BP (though it may have been set up that way). Q5 also worries me. IMHO, you probably should ask the administrator their reasoning first before making any edits. Also, I find it hard to support users who completely change their answer to a question in response to a comment. Otherwise, you're a great editor. NF24(radio me!) 23:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. OpposeExcellent editor, does not yet know much about what is involved in being an adminisrator. DGG (talk) 02:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per DGG and ST47. The answers to the questions shows a lack of experience in administrative areas, especially dealing with BLP. Sorry. — DarkFalls talk 09:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose per answer to Q5. Daniel 09:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I'm confused about the answer to Q5, seems like more experience is needed, sorry. Secret account 01:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the answer you were hoping for? Dorfklatsch 02:35, January 8, 2008
    The answer to Q5 completely avoided the question asked which was what would you do if you see a BLP removal you disagree with, and showed a lack of understanding over BLP. Secret account 03:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There have been a number of comments directed at my answer question 5. It appears my answer was not as clear as I had thought, I have gone into more detail and proved a relevant example of one of my BLP edits that predates this RfA. Thanks for pointing out the shortcoming. Jeepday (talk) 04:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. Per NF24. -- Mentifisto 05:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose Per NF24 also. --Law Lord (talk) 06:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Suggest that Jeepday start out slow and learn the policy ropes. Congolese fufu (talk) 03:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)I really wish Jeepday the best of luck and best WP experience. His/her desire to see deleted material (see Q1) does not need sysop tools, just ask. If admins routinely give trouble to people that make such request, that's different (and give that as a reason for RFA). Lack of knowledge of recalls until the question was asked suggests that he/she doesn't read ANI or AN. As such, he/she isn't ready for the policy discussions that admin need to be aware of. He/she might try to help in mediation or to help settle disputes in 3RR. That would make him/her a good ArbCom candidate and one factor that could use to campaign as being one of the non-admins on ArbCom. Learning about tough AFD decisions, even participating in the hard ones is another possible way for Jeepday to learn the ropes. Jeepday also notes that a block is a nonpunitive measure. That won't cause me to oppose but it suggests that he/she is unaware that blocks are often made for punitive measures. There is also no hint that he/she understands the serious psychological blow that being blocked can cause. Why else are there so many socks? I'm sure some of them are from blocking. I just don't want him to be the next --, the admin who is constantly blocking people, many of whom deserve it, but a few who don't. Jeepday is 85% ready to be admin. Just a little more policy experience to 100%. In terms of editing, he's fine. Congolese fufu (talk) 04:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as deleted material goes, I've been discussing a controversial deletion with the same administrator for quite a while now, and he still won't tell me what the specific issues were with the deleted material, much less let me see the material for myself. It's quite patronizing, really. To paraphrase: "Don't worry your pretty little head over it, just trust me that the material was bad." I can't tell if the deletion should be reviewed because I don't know what was deleted, or why specifically. These kind of unverifiable actions are a grave concern for me. --SSBohio 15:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That won't cause me to oppose but it suggests that he/she is unaware that blocks are often made for punitive measures. - To clarify, a block is supposed to be a non-punitive measure. The goal of blocks is to prevent someone from damaging the encyclopedia. Yes, you're right that there have been instances of wholly punitive blocks (e.g. someone being blocked for "too much social networking" or "not enough encyclopedic contribution"), but such blocks constitute abuse of admin tools and should never be made. WaltonOne 12:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There's always a disconnect between what ought to be and what is. I've seen punitive blocks, and some of the currently most heated issues on this project (Durova, Giano, IRC, etc.) have, to one extent or another, involved blocks that arguably had some punitive aspect. --SSBohio 15:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral Answer to Avruch's 3rd question yields my hesitation to vote one way or another. --Charitwo talk 17:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you explain what you were trying to do here and here? Wizardman 17:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Response at User talk:Wizardman#Trees of Mars Jeepday (talk) 19:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, good explanation. I'll look through some more of your contribs to see if I'm going to support. Wizardman 19:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral: Same as above. The answer you supplied to Avruch's 3rd question doesn't allow me to support you. May I suggest you thinking about it some more, to see if your opinion on that changes. Also, not as "important" to me, Avruch's #4. You must have some opinion, so please share it with us. If you really, somehow don't have an opinion, would you mind reading it and getting one? - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC) .. Switching to Support. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral Leaning to support, but I find the answers to Avruch's questions to be quite unsatisfactory. However, this seems to be a well meaning editor who would be unlikely to abuse the buttons. I want to support, and am very much open to changing to support, and so I encourage Jeepday to elaborate a bit, especially on Qs 4-5. We need more than one sentence! :) BTW, I especially like the answer to Q1; generally I don't care for self noms, but this editor has given a very specific reason why he wants the tools, and I feel that his having them will benefit the 'pedia. I just want him to show that he really understands policy before going support. Cheers, faithless (speak) 20:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, neutral for now Question 6 worries me a little bit, as AfD is likely one of the most important things you'll be doing as a sysop, and "not wanting to take action" is not the right answer (and yes, I realize that there are no wrong answers to any of those questions you responded to, but as an admin you'll be expected to take action, on a regular basis.) There are a lot of qualities you have that make me want to support, but that answer makes me think you're not quite ready. Mr Senseless (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral. While I'm leaning toward support, I get a sense from his responses to the questions above that he has very little idea of what admins do and can do. I would like to see him spend a couple months helping out with admin-related activities, after which he should be in a better position to run a second RfA. Trusilver (talk) 15:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC) Changing to support. Trusilver (talk) 07:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral leaning to oppose - pending response upon reply to my further question (5). The answer was not what I would have expected. Just discuss with the admin and repost in BLP/N would have been a simpler response. Why take a deletion of BLP material to DRV? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral I'm really torn with this one; I would have liked to have seen more reasoned answers from the start, but I can see the reasons for that; OTOH, and this is nothing personal, candidate does not seem to be making the best case for himself. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral leaning oppose Lots to like, but I agree with User:Rodhullandemu that the candidate is not making a very clear case for himself. This lack of clarity is not enough on it's own to oppose, but other worries (clearly evidenced in the oppose section) are. However I do see many many positives as well, so Neutral it is. Pedro :  Chat  13:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral I have to agree with Trusilver on this. I'd like to see the candidate get more experience re the need for the tools. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 23:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral While I believe him to be a valuable editor, his responses to questions did not demonstrate clearly that he required administrative tools. Guldenat (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2008 (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.

Support A few hours late. Spevw (talk) 00:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category