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

Jsfouche[edit]

Final (45/26/6); Scheduled to end 16:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC) No consensus to promote at this time. –xenotalk 18:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination[edit]

Jsfouche (talk · contribs) – I am self-nominating myself for Adminship. I am active in many aspects of the English Wikipedia, from creating new articles, editing existing articles, creating useful templates, patrolling, giving advice to new users, and participating in copyedit and wikification drives. I have also contributed to articles on other Wikipedias. Being an editor on the Wikipedia is very much an enjoyable hobby for me. I enjoy researching references and expanding articles. I have created quite a number of articles myself. I also have had a successful DYK nomination. I believe I have a well-rounded record of being a responsible and courteous editor and wish to contribute to the success of the Wikipedia by serving as an Administrator. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 15:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: Initially, I plan to help with CSD requests and user COI issues. As I gain more experience as an Admin, I would like to help with page restoration issues (like restoring to userfy an article). I am also very interested in helping new users who have questions for Administrators. I firmly believe that the success of Wikipedia is tied to developing new editors.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My contributions are well rounded as stated in my nomination. My best contributions are my edits and created articles, particularly articles related to Nursing, waterfalls, and rapid transit systems. As an editor who actively creates new articles, I feel that I understand how daunting it can be to new editors to make sure their articles are up to par, and it will make me be conscientious when it comes to responding to CSD nominations.
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 cannot recall being involved in any edit wars. I have had run-ins with users that upset over CSD or AfD nominations. Rather than respond with some tactless reply, I have tried to remain civil and stick to the facts. If I feel that I am letting my emotions get involved, I log off and do something else. This allows me to return to the discussion with a cooler head, and at times, allowed me to see that I was wrong.
Additional question from C.Fred
4. What involvement have you had with CSD requests and COI issues to this point? (Or, what's a good example of each to see the sort of situations you've addressed so far?) How do you feel you'll better be able to help in these issues if you get administrator rights?
A:I have tagged numerous articles for speedy deletion from the NPP. Most of the time, they are very obvious examples that are readily deleted by Admins. I also look for COI tags added by the software to determine if there is a COI issue (primarily with user names). If so, I tag the user's talk page to alert them that their user name is a COI and is against policy. I have also removed CSD tags from articles that I do not feel meet the strict criteria. The most common time I see this is when an editor tags an article based on A1, A3, or G1 criteria. Often these are incorrectly tagged as such, but they are actually just poorly written material or a non-notable subject not covered in the other criteria. When I find these, I convert them to PROD if warranted. As an Admin, I would help to make sure the CSD process is timely, but consistent. When I deny a nomination, I will leave a message on the user's talk page to explain my rationale. This helps to reduce the number of invalid CSD nominations. For COI issues, if there is a clear COI issue with a user name that violates policy, I would block that user with appropriate explanation. Thank you for the excellent question! jsfouche ☽☾Talk 17:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question from /ƒETCHCOMMS/
5. What do you think is the key(s) to properly applying CSD A7? (That is, if someone was constantly mistagging pages for A7, how would you explain what the point of A7 is?)
A:A7 can be tricky. I think many editors use it in place of notability concerns. Of course notability is essential to WP, but A7 does not address it directly. Instead, it is used when there is no stated importance claimed in the article. I see this most often in the case of "vanity" articles. Users will create a page about their education, work history, etc, but fail to establish why they are "important." This would meet A7 criteria. If they, perhaps, mentioned that they were also the CEO of a large corporation, then they have established importance. They would still need to establish notability using credible, verifiable sources in order to pass notability concerns that may be raised via PROD or AfD nominations. Also, they would need credible references to pass PROD-BLP criteria. With importance, the claim must also be credible. For example, saying one is a Prince of England would establish importance, but clearly is not credible. As such, the CSD are met, and the article is subject to speedy deletion. In summary, the primary point of A7 is importance, not notability. Thank you for the excellent question. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 18:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additional questions from MC10
6. In your own words, could you explain the difference between CSD A1 and CSD A3?
A:Certainly. A1 is for articles that the reader has no idea what specifically is being written about. They are typically short articles that fail to actually say what the article is about. There may a general mention of the topic, but it fails to answer the question "what is this article specifically about?" Without context, the article is meaningless. A3 is for articles that may have context, but do not really have any substantive encyclopedic content. The best example is when a new user creates a page, decides they do not like the title, then creates a new page whose only content is "See XXX article" instead of moving the page or creating a redirect. Thank you for the excellent question. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 18:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. When is it appropriate to use CSD G1 (as opposed to using a different CSD criteria or not even tagging a page with CSD)?
A:G1 is only for articles that are incoherent strings of text or gibberish like "ertqewfasdgertrgererfrefretqer" or "righthiltstopgo." G1 should not be used for nonsensical articles that contain coherent text. I think it is most commonly used incorrectly when the article is about an unremarkable "thing" or concept that is not covered by any of the "A" CSD. I think editors get ticked off at the obvious nonsense, and hastily use G1 instead of PROD or AfD. While it may seem irritating to let a nonsense article linger while a PROD or AfD goes to completion, it is the only option under the current criteria. Thanks. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 18:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Salvio giuliano
8. What is the difference between a softerblock and a spamublock; when would you employ the former instead of the latter and vice versa?
A: Based on my understanding of these blocks, a softerblock is used when the username appears to represent a group, compnay, organization, etc., but is NOT being used for spamming or promotion. This type of block is employed to simply eliminate the impression of a user editing on behalf of such. It allows the user to recreate a new account, but they must keep in mind that they are still held to the COI guidelines. A spamublock is used when the user is using their account primarily for promotion, spamming, etc. Oftentimes, the username also represents a COI, but the primary difference is that spamublock is based on activity. If the username is not associated with spamming/promotion, I would use softerblock. If they are spamming, then I would employ spamublock. At any rate, I would seek mentoring on the first few blocks I employ just to be sure I am using them correctly. Thank you for the excellent question. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 14:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Chzz
9. Should users always be given level 1,2,3,4 warnings, in order? In what circumstances could warnings be skipped, or users blocked without warning?
A: As a general rule, I think that warnings should be progressive, particularly for new users (some of who may not even know how to access their usertalk page to read them). There are, however, circumstances when warnings can be skipped. The most obvious cases are vandalism-only or spam-only accounts. In regards to the previous question, a softerblock and/or spamublock may be used without warnings because they represent serious violations of WP policies. Great question.jsfouche ☽☾Talk 14:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from SarekOfVulcan
10. Would you care to comment on your recent tagging of Chayzz Devyant as A3, no content, when the article consisted of a lengthy biography at that point?
A: Without the page history, I can only guess. Because I later tagged it as A7, I am going to assume one of two things. First, the original article may have met A3 criteria. When the user added more information, I changed it to A7. Second, I may have erroneously tagged it as A3, then changed it to A7 once I realized the error. I am really not sure which scenario is true. Of note, another editor kept issuing uw templates for disruptive editing, and I commented that I did not feel the edits were disruptive (rather the editor was making changes to content, most likely in an attempt to address the A7 concern). I also notified the other editor that I felt their warnings were harsh, even though the CSD were met. The article's creator was also tagged for COI and promotion since it was likely a vanity article that was speedily deleted by an Admin for A7 criteria. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 22:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Logan
11. Can you please explain your usage of ((PD-textlogo)) for File:Aorn logo.gif? How does the graphic to the left of the text constitute a "simple geometric shape?"
A: It should be ((Non-free logo)) with a FUR added. I will fix that right now. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 22:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additional - strictly optional - question from Kudpung
12. While patrolling new pages, you come across a detailed autobiography of a clearly non notable minor. What would you do?
A: If the article fails to assert importance, then the article can be tagged for speedy deletion by using A7 CSD. Of course, if the article is a candidate for deletion, other methods (including sticky PROD) can be employed. The bigger issue (and the one I think you want to know my thoughts on) is the possibility that a child has disclosed personally identifiable information. The most critical piece is advising the user of the potential dangers of such actions in the hopes that they will remove the content themselves. If the content is removed, it should be considered for deletion by Oversight. Children (or those posing as children) who are provocative and also disclose personal information are considered disruptive. The content should be removed, and the user likely banned. The goal is to balance good-faith editing by children, while protecting them and following applicable laws. If the user is not disruptive, but I felt that the user was disclosing too much information and did not self-remove after being counseled, I would take it to the Admin noticeboard for discussion and consensus. Thanks for the great question! jsfouche ☽☾Talk 00:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. What I was looking for was a clear recognition that New Page Patrolling, and deletion of articles CSD tagged by patrollers, need far more careful attention than many realise. I think you have adequately demonstrated your appreciation of these issues. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Support - Everything looks good, especially temperament. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - Looks fine, opposer's rationale unconvincing. mauchoeagle (c) 20:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Note to closing crat: MauchoEagle has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Stricken. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. While I dislike "per nom" and the PROD issues raised below should not be ignored, I think this candidate has a firm grasp on the CSD criteria and knows their proper applications. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 20:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support per last 8 months of active editing. –BuickCenturyDriver 22:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The issues about PROD and "per nom" are certainly not to be discounted; however, I am confident that Jsfouche has learned from the former issue (it happened a while ago) and will be careful with the latter. Also, I do admire the guts that it takes to self-nominate. From prior experience with the candidate as well as stalking their edits from time to time, I can be confident with them having the mop. Airplaneman ✈ 23:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support – In light of the PROD and "per nom" issues, which are valid issues, I believe that the candidate has the temperament necessary for an admin, and I believe that he/she will be able to learn from his/her past mistakes. —mc10 (t/c) 00:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - I see no issues with the "per nom" comments, especially since in some of them he was the first commenter in the discussion. I would rather see "delete per nom" than "delete (insert repetition of nomination)". The PROD spamming, a much larger issue, seems to be a thing of the past. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC) (Moving to oppose)[reply]
  6. Support I don't really like the prod spam, but particularly as they were prods, and therefore easy to challenge, I don't think that is enough of a reason not to support. Per Nom is an acceptable response at an AfD, even if a more nuanced response would be more helpful. Monty845 02:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support I agree with Airplaneman on this. Also, this user has responded courteously to concerns made below; one of the requirements needed for an administrator. Minima© (talk) 06:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Candidate seems to know their way around pretty well, and has a very good understanding of the CSD criteria (misuse of G1 is one of my pet peeves). Bit of over-zealous PRODing from months ago doesn't worry me too much - I think the candidate will use the admin tools with care -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support, has clue. jorgenev 15:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. I'd been wrestling this one, and I finally got answers to the two questions I had. Does the user need the tools? Yes, he's interested in working with CSD and COI, areas where Wikipedia can benefit from another person with the mop. Can he be trusted with the tools? Yes—even though there's missteps in his editing career, there's not a history of making the same mistakes over and over. Additionally, as in question #8, he's expressed a willingness to seek mentoring and guidance from the admin community. That tells me he's got a respect for the tools and to make sure they're used properly. —C.Fred (talk) 16:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support per answers to questions and responses to issues raised in opposes. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support especially because I feel that Steve_Zhangs oppose is a silly. The prodding was a little OTT but he can be trusted and i think he will make a fine admin. Seddon talk|WikimediaUK 20:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Why not? L'etats C'est Moi (I Am The State) (talk) 20:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support - this one has taken me a fair while to reach a conclusion. As we by now know, there are issues that need to be looked at for a bit. Whatever the result of this RfA, I recommend you to just sit back and take in what your critics have said, and drill home that policy, as mundane a prospect as that seems. But it needs to be addressed. Otherwise, I have no doubts in your enthusiasm, your work and honesty. All the best. Orphan Wiki 22:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. Good responses to criticisms and questions, and a solid balance of contributions. – SJ + 00:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  16. (Move from oppose). My original comments in my oppose vote stand, I still see an issue with your rationales in XFD and the 29 PROD tags in just as many minutes. on the flip side of this your answers to RFA questions since my original comment are quite well thought out and demonstrate a sound understanding of CSD policy, which I note is the main reason you are running for RFA. These two balance each other out well, so while I still feel niggling issues in the past, your answers demonstrate you've gone past them. The RFA pool is quite dry now, and I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. I need to consider net positive to the wiki, after careful consideration, I feel you've had issues in the past, but your answers demonstrate sufficiently enough to me you've learnt better, and will be a net positive as an admin. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 01:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I appreciate your change of heart, and if successful, I will strive to make you glad you did! BTW, can you fix the voting numbers in the oppose section? Because of the replies to your original post, it is still counting as an oppose in the tally. I would, but I do not want it to appear that I am tampering with the numbers. Thanks again!! jsfouche ☽☾Talk 01:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support - the candidate's affirmation that they will improve their editing regardless of the outcome is certainly a quality a good admin possesses. If the RfA passes, the candidate should go slow and defer to existing administrators where they are unable to make a decision for themselves. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 6:50pm • 08:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support After mulling this over, I'm moving my !vote to support. I believe that, while not insignificant, the PRODing situation is unlikely to occur again and that Jsfouche will make a good admin.Catfish Jim (ex-soapdish) 09:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Sure. I see no "canrightarticle" right in the sysop package, so content experience really doesn't matter (nor should it). Ajraddatz (Talk) 13:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There are so many things wrong with that statement, I don't know where to start. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support - The candidate clearly knows the difference between right and wrong and how to use mistakes as an opportunity to grow his knowledge, and he shows great talent and administrator qualities. --Another Type of Zombie talk 14:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support - Good vandal fighting. Knows what he's doing as well as perfect contributions like WP:DYK articles. --Damirgraffiti ☺Say Yo to Me!☺ 20:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  22. I like Swarm's note in the neutral section and the candidate's response. That settles that super-minor little issue as far as I'm concerned. The candidate looks like a trustworthy editor with a compelling use for the buttons. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support - fully meets my standards: in particular - over 7,800 edits, high-quality article work and sufficient WP edits, autopatroller, reviewer, rollbacker, etc. I have never made it a habit of denying the mop to anyone who is religiously different from me, and this is not a good time to change one of my few good habits. I have read and reflected on the opposition comments (including from two editors whom I especially respect), but I think on the whole this user would be a good sysop. I also think that it would be good to have another nurse on crew. Bearian (talk) 23:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Weak Support - I think the editor has been on Wikipedia for long enough, with enough edits, to satisfy me as far as general experience. This editor's communications skills are quite good. The poor judgement in a small number of cases (CSD and PROD have been mentioned in this RfA) is a concern. My biggest concern is a lack of participation in Wikipedia space. However, there's enough that I tentatively support. This RfA is not going well, and if it does not pass, my advice to Jsfouche is to keep doing what you're doing, get some more experience, and learn from your mistakes. -- Atama頭 23:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support - the concerns raised by the opposers have been a concern. I believe the good outweighs the negative. The answers to the questions give me the confidence that this will be a net positive. GB fan (talk) 00:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. There are valid points in many of the opposition statements. These problems of approach to maintaining the encyclopedia do not display behavioural traits that require a long time to overcome, and can be addressed in a day. I am therefore confident that the candidate has demonstrated sufficient insight to take those issues on board and adapt his housekeeping tasks accordingly. I trust the candidate not to make abuse of the tools and I am sure that he would ask other admins for advice if he is not sure about something. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support User has clue. --JaGatalk 04:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support --N KOziTalk 07:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support I cannot see any major problems here. A clueful, courteous editor who seems trustworthy. Nothing in opposition seems particularly persuasive -- minor judgement issues at most. Miss E. Lovetinkle (talk) 07:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support, you'll do a good job with the mop. We all screw up occasionally – I'd rather have a candidate that's done wrong and learned from it than one who has never done anything. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support - shows clue and ability to learn. Yes, the opposes have a few points, the PROD incident being the most serious to me. However, I think the candidate has learned from that and will not make similar mistakes. PrincessofLlyr royal court 15:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support- I've detailed my concerns in the neutral section. Jsfouche understands and has acknowledged them, and I'm confident he will be more careful in the future. In addition, his overall comments in this RfA have convinced me that the candidate's communication is actually ideal for an administrator, and the previous issues were probably just, as Lovetinkle says, minor judgement issues. Lastly, I agree with Kudpung. The concerns raised, while valid, can be addressed in the time frame of this RfA. I really think the candidate has taken the point from the opposes and neutrals and will improve accordingly. I fully trust Jsfouche not to abuse the tools, to accept criticism and to admit when he was wrong. This will not only make him an acceptable admin, but an ideal one. Swarm X 15:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support – A reasonable – rational and realistic explanation to the first person to oppose and the numerous pile-on-opinions based on this oppose opinion (not counting the first individual in the oppose section. Who, by the way, moved to Support). Other than this one blip, the candidate looks like a trustworthy editor with a persuasive argument for access to the extra buttons. Good LuckShoesssS Talk 18:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  34. per airplaneman. Dlohcierekim 19:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Weak Support He has been a long-time editors making good edits. He (or she) has being doing hard work, he(or she) needs a promotion. --SomeDudeWithAUserName (talk with me!) 21:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Becoming an administrator is not a "promotion", and it is not awarded for "doing hard work". There are thousands of Wikipedians who do excellent work, but whose strengths do not lie in administrative areas. There are others who do a much more limited amount of work, but who have good administrative skills. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    See also: Wikipedia is (not) an MMORPG. —mc10 (t/c) 03:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Opposes are not convincing I have no reason to believe that this user will abuse the tools. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 14:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  37. No evidence that user will abuse the tools. He might misuse them a couple times at the start based on some of the opposes' diffs, but everyone has a learning curve. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Samir 19:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Weak Support – I'm going to AGF on both major issues, the 29 PRODs (Was Jsfouche aware it would create as many ugly warnings, was he aware the same user created them, did he have the time to think through how 7 pages of warnings might make a user feel), and the unreferenced creations, because he did go through that list today and provided references. The support is weak because at Anhanguera (district of São Paulo) the added reference does not support anything in that article, raising fears of shoot-first-ask-later, or worse, window dressing. Good answers to questions, clean history. --Pgallert (talk) 20:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support I agree with Pgallert just above. Despite these missteps, I still think giving Jsfouche the bit is a net positive for the project. Pichpich (talk) 23:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support; I've looked through the oppose rationales, and while I certainly agree there are some rough spots I don't think there's anything indicating a serious problem. And to echo Ajraddatz above, content writing and being a good admin do not go hand in hand, however much some may want to pretend it does. They're different roles, and while many are good at both there are also many only good at one or the other; I think Jsfouche falls into the latter category, and will make a very good admin. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Just a heads up support, really.--Ankit Maity Talk • contribs 10:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Weak Support - After reading over the arguments for opposing, I can understand where they are coming from and am myself personally very close to opposing, but as the 29 PROD's occurred back in January I'm going to AGF them and from what I can see, your contributions sense that point have been of a high enougu quality to allay any concerns I may have. Best, Mifter (talk) 14:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support no reason to think that this user would abuse the tools --rogerd (talk) 14:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support No concerns, and I think if you get the tools (though, unlikely at this point), you will address the issues brought up here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
(Move to support, see my comments there) Sorry, but I just do not feel you are quite ready based on the edits I have reviewed. You state you intent to work in deletion but from these I have listed below comments I don't feel you are ready for the task. Your rationales of per nom in these discussions here,here,here,here,here, here, here, here and here, and comments like per NOR and adds very little to the discussion. Additionally, this also gave me concerns, deletion discussions have a purpose and compromising the debate was something I can't agree with you making edits that compromise the discussion. I'm sorry, but I found these by looking through your last 50 edits, and I just don't have the confidence I need to support. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 16:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments. I use "per nom" when commenting on XfD nominations to indicate that the nomination as written details the rationale very well and that I agree with it. While I certainly could write more detail, it would essentially be rewording of the original nomination, thus the simplified "per nom." It is used by many editors for the same reason. The article with the "per NOR" was indeed deleted for being OR, and again, I felt that there was no need to describe the definition of OR in the comment. The article violated that pillar of the WP, and my comment gave a link for the editor to follow to learn about OR. The CfD issue is one from which I have learned greatly. It was my first CfD nomination, and I admitted that I did not place the tag on all of the subcats. I indicated that I thought tagging the main cat was sufficient. I was in no way attempting to compromise the discussion. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 17:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That may be so, but personally, "per nom" is still a pet hate for me. I don't feel it's too hard to elaborate on why you agree with the nominator's rationale, or state reasons why you agree. Sorry. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 17:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully acknowledged. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 18:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the fact that Jsfouche has used "per nom" and "per NOR" in discussions is, in of itself, completely immaterial. Was there, in any of these cases, something dreadfully wrong with what the nominator was proposing?James500 (talk) 18:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The arguments against these kinds of rationales are outlined in these sections of the "Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions" essay: WP:PERNOM and WP:VAGUEWAVE. It's worth noting that the viewpoints in the essay enjoy wide support. Skomorokh 18:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There was nothing wrong with the nominator's rationales, James, it was the fact that while other users in the deletion debates wrote more expansive comments, Jsfouche's comments of per nom didn't show much independent thought to me, which I feel is important for being an administrator. I do acknowledge their answers to the RFA questions in regards to speedy deletes are quite good, but these links are far too much for me to overlook. His responses to the XFDs don't demonstrate independent thought, and as a sysop more often than not this is important. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 19:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that correctly identifying a nominator's rationale as being correct is an exercise of independent thought. I see no reason in principle for it to need to be accompanied by excess verbiage. If he blindly agreed with an incorrect rationale, that would be a failure to exercise independent thought.James500 (talk) 19:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just going to note that the "arguments to avoid" essay says: If the rationale provided in the nomination includes a comprehensive argument, specific policy references and/or a compelling presentation of evidence in favour of deletion, a simple endorsement of the nominator's argument may be sufficient, typically indicated by "per nom". I really don't see what the problem is. Swarm X 19:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose Despite nice answers and a seemingly good knowledge of policy, I think the application is, at times, poorly thought out. An example is adding 29 consecutive PRODs to the same user over half an hour a few months back. Is that really the best way to go about "developing new editors"? Did you make any attempt to contact or help this user (albeit not a 'new' user) who is creating articles in good faith? I note that the user then contacted you with a lengthy rationale and you gave a three-sentence reply, which was devoid of policy, helpful links, friendliness etc. Jebus989✰ 19:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the comments. The PROD noms referred to were for individual song articles by a single band (and the corresponding albums also have articles). I felt that they did not meet the criteria for a stand alone article. That is the purpose of PROD. When the user (not new) contacted me, my reply did mention the rationale and even an explanation as to why I did not PROD all the song entries, which shows that I assumed good faith. Had I simply wanted to be belligerent, I could have nominated all the songs. Instead, I looked at each one to see if the WP:NSONG criteria could be met. The ones that did not meet the criteria were PRODed (their only references were lists of chart rankings). In my response to the editor, I did indicate the rationale. Do you feel the PRODs were not warranted? jsfouche ☽☾Talk 19:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I don't think 29 PRODs in as many minutes without any interaction is warranted on any occasion. In response to your question, yes many of them are borderline cases, especially considering "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article" (from WP:NSONGS); of the articles I skimmed over none were stubs, and some contained sound encyclopaedic and referenced information. Even if every one of these articles was a strong case for a PROD, do you not see how a single talkpage message, with a bulleted list of each article, and an accompanying detailed explanation, would be far more useful to the user than 29 identical templates on their talkpage? Jebus989✰ 20:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions#User made a mistake wrong or inapplicable? Why is this so bad that it means that giving sysop tools to Jsfouche would do more harm than good?James500 (talk) 22:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read the examples you're quoting, I find the implications of you posting that link offensive and it's completely inapplicable in this case. I'm not saying "only people who have been continuously perfect since their first edit should be admins". The candidate doesn't even think he has made a mistake, displaying a continuous poor judgement. This isn't one isolated, out of character error which he now regrets; it's an example I turned up in a few minutes of research into the user's interaction skills with other users, especially pertinent for one who wants to be involved with helping new users with an admin level of responsibility. The 'so bad' aspect is that, given the admin tools, the candidate presumably would have gone ahead and deleted articles in a similar situation after 7 days, removing a substantial amount of well-referenced, well-written encyclopaedic content Jebus989✰ 23:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    My remark was not intended to be offensive or to suggest that you were saying only people who have been continuously perfect since their first edit should be admins. I've struck it out now. I did read the essay in question. I did not quote any of the examples that it contains. James500 (talk) 10:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. The recent PRODding of all those articles on Slade hits appeared to show a lack of good judgment and lack of consideration of alternatives such as talk page discussion and merging, what with PROD being for articles that are "uncontroversially a deletion candidate", while at the same time suggesting that the information could be included in album articles. I'm also not convinced by contributions at AFD that sufficient care will be taken before deleting articles. The candidate only really being active here for a little over six months is also a concern. --Michig (talk) 20:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The PRODing incident took place in January, you can't call it recent. Also the candidate has been editing actively for 8 months. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    For an adult, evaluating behavior, 6 months might be considered recent (i.e. you CAN call it recent. Maybe can call the entire Wiki career recent.)
    For a user who had been editing for three months at the time? Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure. The time spent on wiki, doesn't change recency. I'm not messing with you. It's probably just a difference of view. 6 months is recent to me. (honest). That the editor has little time spent prior to that is not positive to me, it's negative as it means the entire participant experience is less than a year. I prefer our moderators to have more time contributing before becoming moderators. As far as it being early in her career, yeah...that does mean she could have still been on the steep part of the learning curve. (but my basic point is I want more distance from the steep part of the learning curve...want our admins to be established users first). So...i think I get your point there. But I was just reacting to the "no way you can call January recent". Cause quite honest...I can and would. Peace, bra. TCO (talk) 23:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "He". Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. Concerns about experience and temperament. -- Cirt (talk) 21:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose striking oppose, moving to support Candidate shows a lot of promise, but has only been actively contributing for just over 7 months (since mid-October). The Slade PROD was four months ago, but the answer above shows a continuing misunderstanding of WP:NSONGS Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. Several of the songs in question made it to the top ten in the UK charts. I'd like to see the candidate back in a few months time, once they've gained more experience. Catfish Jim (ex-soapdish) 22:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Inadequate article writing experience. I would ask my standard question about the article that you contributed most content to in second half of 2010, but you barely started with wiki then, so no point. Also, I checked the article where you had most edits (nurse anesthitist) and most of the content pre-existed your coming there (almost every reference was already there). I prefer admins to be experienced editors. Advise spending a year of article editing and then coming back. There is lots of good work to be done sans moderator status. You do have a nice demeanor and I have no doubt you will pass an admin board once you have more time in the hospital (I mean in the Wiki). Good luck! TCO (talk) 23:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Additional. Looking at your user page you mention Sao Paulo Metro as an article that you wrote most of. But when I look at the diffs, most of the images and text, pre-existed before you got there. Also all the references are still bare urls. Would prefer that you learn more about referencing, image-adding, article structure (not just a split, but layout) before being a moderator.TCO (talk) 23:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of the work I did with the São Paulo Metro was the creation of S-line templates, navigational templates, and the creation of individual articles for all 9 metro lines as well as the 77 articles about stations (albeit most are stubs, they are all referenced and formatted). I also created the templates and articles for the administrative zones of the city of São Paulo (mostly translated from the Portuguese Wiki). Perhaps I should have been clearer when I mentioned São Paulo Metro and indicated articles ABOUT the metro, and not just the main article. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 00:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No sweat then on the "created most of the article" assertion. (Still, my vote will wait for you showing more article writing chops. Just my view. Be glad to support after more meaningful content creation.)TCO (talk) 00:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose The epic PROD spam above is alarming enough, but the editor's apparent lack of understanding that this constitutes a problem in his response to the issue when raised above is more alarming. Even if 100% of those PRODs were absolutely appropriate -- and I haven't checked, because that's not the issue I'm raising in concert with one other person in the Oppose list -- it's plainly counterproductive to dump 29 identical PROD templates on an editor's talk page in a 30 minute span. Frankly, it borders on black comedy. Poor judgment, at least for now. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 00:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I would strongly urge you to look up the definitions of "spam," "alarming" and "black comedy" and check future usage of those words. Swarm X 19:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not entirely certain what the purpose of this response is, but I am familiar with the meaning of all three of those terms. I am also certain I am entitled to express an opinion without having someone condescendingly suggest I look up the definition of non-esoteric words and phrases. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 12:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies, I assumed the purpose would be clear. "Spam" suggests that you're assuming bad faith, and "alarming" and "black comedy" suggest that the candidate's mistakes are so severe that they're disturbing (you're referencing a fairly minor situation). This unnecessarily scathing choice of words is uncivil, insulting and inappropriate. I don't seriously think that you're ignorant of the words' meanings, but I do think you probably selected those words without fully thinking through the implications of them. Please choose more carefully, and best regards. Swarm X 17:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with almost everything you've written here but continuing this conversation will have neither salient effect on this RfA nor any distinguishable benefit for either of us. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Weak oppose The candidate has been highly active for only 8 months and lacks in depth writing experience. Also the perfunctory "per nom" issues are a concern, as are the serial PROD spamming issues. That said, I see real promise here. Answers to questions demonstrate a sound grasp of policy. Try again after 6 months and mentoring.--Hokeman (talk) 01:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, how things have changed. When I joined in 2007 8 months of active editing might have been enough. –BuickCenturyDriver 03:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    For sure, hell, in 2007 you could pass RFA with 2000 edits (handy dandy stats). jorgenev 08:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Small wonder the RFA process is currently being discussed. –BuickCenturyDriver 05:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose Concerns with judgement, temperament, experience, policy knowledge. -FASTILY (TALK) 02:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose There are several problems, including the 29 PRODs, which indicates a poor style of communication which I think would be totally unsuitable for an administrator, the compromised CfD discussion, which indicates a poor grasp of how to use procedures constructively, the "per nom" rationales, which might be an abbreviation for a well thought out reason but might also be a shorthand for "I've just read what someone else has written and without checking myself I think it looks good": in either case, an administrator should be better at communicating what they have in mind. However, what really decided me to oppose was the fact that the editor does not seem to accept that there is any validity to the criticisms. An administrator who can't acknowledge their own mistakes is not a good administrator. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for taking time to explain your rationale. It is not my intention to indicate that there is no validity to the criticisms. I am open to criticism. Self-nominating is an invitation for criticism. My intent, rather, is to give an explanation for the past concerning events. I accept the fact that I made mistakes, and I willingly accept criticism, but at the same time, I am just trying to explain what happened. Explaining my actions should not be misinterpreted as not accepting criticism. My response about the CfD issue above indicates that I know I messed up and have learned from that. The PROD issue, I acknowledge that it was not the best way to handle it. It is disconcerting to know that you feel I am not accepting of criticism. I would much rather have an unsuccessful AfD based on my mistakes than on misperception of my personality. I truly appreciate your comments, but I need you to know that I accept my mistakes, and do not take any past mistakes lightly. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 17:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I accept that you did acknowledge that you made a mistake on the CfD (though what you said was not as strong as that you "messed up", which you have now said), and I accept that what I wrote was not entirely accurate. Nevertheless, I still feel that in all the cases I mentioned you fall short of a full appreciation of the nature of your mistakes. For example, in the PROD case, you seem to think that the issue is whether the PRODs were justified, whereas in my opinion the issue is whether even if they were each individually justified, flinging a string of dozens of PROD notifications at an inexperienced editor was a good way of handling it. This sort of failure to grasp what the problems with your editing are is not good for an admin, even if it is not actually true that you are never willing to admit that there are problems. JamesBWatson (talk)
  9. Oppose. The series of PRODs is concerning. I am also disappointed by this AfD nomination. Jsfouche has not indicated any attempt to establish notability. (MelanieN's response is far superior.) MelanieN showed that the problem with the article was with verifiability, not notability. The fact that other editors demonstrated that the article should be deleted does not vindicate Jsfouche's initial AfD statement. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm confused. Is this MelanieN's RfA? If not, you shouldn't be comparing Jsfouche to other editors. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Why shouldn't I be comparing Jsfouche to other editors? Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The point I get from this example was that Jsfouche's nomination for the article was a mere "Fails WP:N"; the next editor to participate in the AfD then did—or showed the evidence of doing—a lot more legwork to back up the assertion that the article fails WP:N. —C.Fred (talk) 19:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Was MelanieN only supposed to say "per nom"...? Airplaneman ✈ 19:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Was I not supposed to relist? ;) Logan Talk Contributions 05:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC) [reply]
  10. Oppose While I am willing to overlook the PROD taggings, my main concerns are 1) your lack of Wikispace experience (currently only 4% of your edits), 2)the severe drop off in activity since January, and 3) your generic "per nom" statements in AFD's. Showing more independent thought (which also shows that you have done some research) will show that you can rationalize why something should be kept or deleted, a quality needed when you close AFD's.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 20:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    A small thing: I'm viewing his mainspace percentage as 47%, not four. Airplaneman ✈ 22:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant to say Wikispace edits, my bad.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 00:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Weak oppose per Michig and a lack of experience in general content work. Given a little more work and a good track record, though, I'd be willing to support in the future. –MuZemike 21:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    OpposeMoving to neutralI agree with many of the opposers, and I was going to just stay out of this RFA, but something that has really convinced me is the answer to question 12. To be honest, it is not about the situation described, but at the final sentence where candidate says he would take it to the admin noticeboard. Doing such would cause a Streisand effect which is exactly what you don't want to do in that situation. I think it's important to know what kinds of actions could cause this effect and when your actions could cause the opposite of your intentions.--v/r - TP 00:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    He has responded to my Q12 with a satisfactory answer that demonstrates that he is aware that tagging and deleting needs deeper research than just seeing a new article or a CSD tag and then pressing a button. I was involved in that particular issue and citing the Streisland effect is an exaggeration. I'm disappointed to see that an answer that contributed to my support, is being used as a reason for opposing because other issues not mentioned in the question were not addressed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. However, I am passionate about children's safety though, which is why the issue resonates with me. If you look at my subpages, you'd see a essay on protecting children on Wikipedia where I very specifically say not to post about it on admin noticeboards. I dont expect candidate to have read it, but the Wikipedia:Child_protection policy says "and should not be the subject of community discussions or requests for comment". I know this is a new policy that not many folks are aware of yet, but it does exist. I'm sorry to use your own question as my rationale, but I assumed since you specifically mentioned "a minor" that you were looking for the same kind of answer I was.--v/r - TP 14:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have read your essay, and online safety of children is very important to me too. I just wanted to say that when I read the Child Protection Policy, I did not interpret the Admin Noticeboard to mean community discussions or RfC. I was thinking about Talk pages and actual RfC entries. I think the most important part of the issue is the counseling and blocking when indicated. Best regards, jsfouche ☽☾Talk 17:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, I was borderline before, but I suppose I can move to neutral here.--v/r - TP 18:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose I think some improvement with communication needs to happen first--that's a really important part of an admin's job (I'd argue one of the most important). The large numbers of prods followed by a bit of a lack of clue about why they might be a problem concern me. I can easily see supporting in the future with some clear improvement in this area. Hobit (talk) 02:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ajsmith141 (talk · contribs) was not a new user when the 29 PRODs were added. He had been editing for over a year at the time. I don't agree with the 29 PRODs in succession, but I don't think it is a big enough issue to oppose him. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You are correct on both counts. The PROD thing was boneheaded, but God knows we all do something boneheaded on occasion. The other issues identified above (poor choices for PRODs etc.) also seem worrying, but I've not had a chance to look closely at those issues and my not until Friday.. I'll indent this oppose for now on the off chance I'll not actually make it back until after this closes (looking like a busy few days coming up to say the least!) Hobit (talk) 03:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12. OpposeAs mentioned earlier, we need administrators who edit content and add to the encyclopedia. We've got tons of policy-pushers and content taggers, but real meaningful editing and adding to Wikipedia shows the actual true core understanding of what it is. Try again after you've developed your lack of content creation, especially in comparison to your overall edit count. Hooper (talk) 03:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't know that the sysop group had a "canimprovepages" right! Thanks for enlightening me. Beyond sarcasm, how does adminship possibly relate to content improvement? You do know what adminship is about, right? How it's just a collection of tools for maintenance and countervandalism? Ajraddatz (Talk) 03:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify, I have created 284 articles. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 03:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm always surprised by the clamor for content creation. There's a reason the symbol of adminship is a mop and not a pen. --JaGatalk 05:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a really silly reason for opposing. First of all, "content creation" has very little to do with what being an administrator is about. Secondly, this editor has an excellent record of content creation. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I accept that "excellent" was an ill-chosen word. However, the user has created as much content as many successful administrators. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you reviewed the candidate's content creation? Mass creation of stubs, with some entirely unreferenced, is not my idea of excellent content Jebus989✰ 16:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe not excellent but as long as the topics are noteable and the recent work is referenced, then as far as content contribution is concerned the candidate is ready for adminship. I'd judge an FA delegate against a much higher standard re content, but admins don't decide whether an article should be featured or not, our buttons are for things like deletion, blocking and protection. ϢereSpielChequers 16:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Depends on what you consider recent, and referenced. Here's a breakdown of the last 10 articles created by the candidate:
    1. Luz (CPTM) - one reference, to the CPTM website
    2. List of microregions of São Paulo - no references
    3. List of mesoregions of São Paulo - no references
    4. Subdivisions of the State of São Paulo - no references
    5. Anhanguera (district of São Paulo) - no references
    6. Água Rasa (district of São Paulo) - no references
    7. Line 13 (CPTM) - empty "references" section, two external links to the CPTM and Brazilian government websites
    8. Line 14 (CPTM) - empty "references" section, two external links to the CPTM and Brazilian government websites
    9. Lapa Terminal - no references
    10. Ponte Orca - no references
    So I think Jebus989 has a point here. 28bytes (talk) 16:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The most recent unreferenced ones are just over a month ago, so quite recent. I haven't finished reviewing the candidate yet, hope to resume doing so in the next 24 hours. If the more recent edits show he's made the transition to writing referenced material then I may yet wind up in the support column. I see writing referenced material as a skill that RFA candidates need to have mastered, but I'm not greatly concerned how recently they've mastered it, as in my experience people rarely backslide from it. So I'm less concerned at a candidate who learned that skill 5 weeks ago than I would be if they had a block from 5 months ago. This chap has a clean blocklog, communicates well and when he is ready will make a good admin. I'm not yet sure whether I think he is ready yet. ϢereSpielChequers 18:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose. I had wanted to stay out of this one because the candidate had already gotten so beaten up over the "29 prods" thing; seemed like a bit of a pile-on over that, and hey, we all make mistakes. But I really can't support a candidate who creates articles with no third-party references. The whole point of the autopatrolled/autoreview flag, in my opinion, is that editors are trusted to perform new page patrol on their own creations, and neglecting to either provide third-party references, or tag the article as unreferenced, means that responsibility is not being met. I think the candidate has a lot of good qualities (the answers to the questions, in particular, are generally well-thought out), and once the referencing problems are resolved I hope to support in a future RfA. 28bytes (talk) 17:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Reluctant oppose. I was also planning to stay out of this, for very similar reasons to 28bytes', but the percentage has gone up a bit recently. You're a nice guy and I didn't want to oppose, but a variety of things make me think you're not quite ready. The first is the 29 PRODs—you used the same rationale (word for word) for each one and did all of them within about 25 minutes of each other. That rationale gives no indication tot he author or the deciding admin of your thought process behind the deletion request or what research you've done to determine that the song isn't notable. It also fails to demonstrate communication skills, which are important for admins for a variety of reasons. That alone wouldn't make me oppose, but I see a pattern with the two-word rationales for !votes and nominations at AfD (as brought up above). You need to make use of your communication skills (which I'm sure you have, especially since you're a nurse), especially in deletion-related areas. My other concerns are a general lack of experience and "hands-on" knowledge of policy, demonstrated by only ~200 edits to the project space (a tenth of which are to this RfA) and a negligible amount to the WT namespace, none of which concerned with policy discussions. You've only been active for a relatively short while and some of your most recently-created articles aren't in compliance with some of the basic policies, so I can't judge how well you know and would implement those policies. Sorry, but put all this together and I can only say 'not yet'. I think you have the potential to be a great admin with a little more and a little broader experience, but I don't think you're ready now. With regret, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose Per others. Immature. Bad communication skills. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:10, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (1)"Per others" is equivalent to "per nom", the use of which the "others" are criticising above. Or perhaps I should ask you which "others" you are referring to. (2) Why do you think that this candidate is "immature"? James500 (talk) 00:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  16. I should stress that I don't think your reading of NSONG is completely wrong. It says "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." It is therefore possible, admittedly at a stretch, to defend the evaluation of 29 articles in half an hour. But by the same token, it gives a clear steer towards merging in this situation, and in my view that would have been (and still would be) the correct approach. Given that admins are usually our only line of defence against the deletion of salvageable content, I feel that this isn't the right time to hand you the delete buttons. —WFC— 21:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Weak oppose - User does a lot of things correctly, but the creation of unreferenced articles goes against the policy of verifiability. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  18. oppose. I believe a good administrator needs to be clueful to how a community is moving in regards to important topics such as new content creation. I have sampled some of your work from late last year October / November 2010 and can see where you have added references after other editors have tagged the unreferenced articles. The thing that concerns me is that even until recently, many of the new stubs / articles lack any inline referencing. As an administrative candidate, I would hope that you would have been keen to know that one is expected to clean up their prior work, and move in a progressive manner towards quality referenced material. We extend some learning curve to new editors towards non-referenced new articles. But new admins and Auto-patrolled not so much in my view. I would be more than happy to support a future run after previous concerns have been addressed. Kindly Calmer Waters 02:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose - the PRODS and temperment. Racepacket (talk) 17:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What's wrong with his "temperment"? Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose Too inexperienced. Warden (talk) 07:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose Only eight months worth of real experience. Not enough for me to feel comfortable handing someone the mop. With regrets, StrikerforceTalk Review me! 10:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose. The prod-spree may have been a sin, but not a mortal sin - many of us have made minor misjudgements from time to time (I certainly have) and as a single event it's well within the error bars, I feel. However, I went through the last 50 article creations and most of them were identikit minimally-referenced stubs, albeit with assorted templates (ie. The writer finds a source which lists several things of type X, so several articles get created which cite only that source). That suggests, to me, an attempt to write as many standardised articles as possible with minimum effort, rather than taking the time to write a deeper encyclopædic article with more readable prose than infoboxes, and with more diverse sources. Not necessarily a bad thing from some random editor - though it's a long time since wikipedia actually had a shortage of two-sentence stubs. However, if a candidature puts so much emphasis on article creation (rather than, say, vandal-fighting or dispute resolution), then the hasty identikit articles tarnish my opinion of the candidature - how can I have confidence that they will put thought into admin actions, or check sources? bobrayner (talk) 12:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose per nom - or something like that. I think Jsfouche has potential, and is likely to make a decent admin at some point - but just not now. Candidate has been active only recently, and much of their contributions do not demonstrate the qualities we expect of admins. I think this RfA has been a learning curve, and I think Jsfouche will take the comments on board. The Wikipedia community likes all editors, and especially admins, to show evidence for their actions. We expect edit summaries for edits, and we expect rationales for supporting or opposing AfDs or when prodding articles, etc. We expect articles to be created with care, rather than have unreferenced linkfarms dumped on us. The answers to questions show that there is a thoughtful and intelligent individual behind the account, but the edit history indicates someone who is only making low level and low quality edits that require little thought or judgement. There's a feel of "I'll make some prod and afd and new page patrol edits, bung in some article stubs, and it'll look good so I can apply to become an admin!" We do expect a bit more than that. We like to see evidence of judgement, communication skills, understanding of policies, etc. I suggest a period of article building, and doing some conflict resolution, as well as working on the WP:Backlog, and then applying again in 6 months time. SilkTork *Tea time 18:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  24. per OM and TCO (when did they allow you back?). concerns about experience, policy knowledge, article writing, etc. -Atmoz (talk) 18:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose per the PROD-spam mentioned ('recent' to me, too), and other aspects detailed above which might, in themselves, be overlooked but there is insufficient demonstrated history of editing to balance the concerns. Question responses don't convince me of policy knowledge; Q4 has odd use of the acronym 'COI', Q5 misses a lot of the points of A7 and is unclear - it's hard to work out exactly what you mean, and that isn't a good sign in an admin - my asking for clarification wouldn't resolve it, because although I think you understand the basic principle, the fact that you've not been able to explain it clearly, in itself, is concerning. Browsing your talk-page comments gives the same impression - that you know the essence of policies and guidelines, but sometimes your explanations of them are inadequate, and even misleading. Temperament does seem good, thus I hope you'll be back here when you've accumulated broader experience. I questioned things a bit in the 'neutral' section, but I don't find the answers satisfactory; sorry. Get more experience at the sharp-end, then come back.  Chzz  ►  04:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose Chzz and ArcAngel make good points here. I have open contempt for people that oppose on the grounds of lack of content contribution, and the PROD thing is... old news. However you need to be clearer. Ambiguity is like chest hair; A little bit of it is okay, a lot of it is disturbing. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
Neutral (Moving to support). Temporary neutral. I need to check contributions first and don't have time right now, but I just wanted to add a quick moral support for a Wikipedian who cares about CSD criteria A1, A3, and G1 - bad ones of those (especially G1) are amongst my pet peeves -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. G1 is abused. I have seen Admins delete articles using that rationale for articles about a nonsensical topic, but the article itself is not gibberish or incoherent. To me, G1 should be one of the least used CSD reasons. I see very few articles that are incoherent text or gibberish. I do, however, see articles that are nonsense and that fail to establish importance, but do not meet any of the "A" criteria (for example, an article about a school project). A1 and A3 are similarly abused. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 18:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral leaning support – Your answers look fine, and a quick look through your talk archives and contribs looks good. I'm awaiting an answer to my questions. —mc10 (t/c) 18:22, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Moving to support. —mc10 (t/c) 00:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral (leaning towards oppose). The candidate needs to do a better job with his CSD tagging and discussing his reasoning with other editors, but he also uses edit summaries on both major and minor edit oftentimes and has created some articles, so I am staying as neutral for now. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) T or M/Sign mine 17:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Weakest possible neutral Move to support - I would probably support, but the potential communication issue relating to the PRODs is slightly concerning. I've had to do large scale nominations before; it is needed on occasion. And, you should absolutely notify the creator about each individual nomination. However, a stack of 30 template message is just not helpful. I would recommend unchecking the "notify creator" box, and write one handwritten message with all the nominations listed in it. Like I said, it's only slightly concerning to me, because it isn't entirely your fault: it was Twinkle that automatically sent the notifications. However, I would rather see an admin who adapts in unusual situations. I have full confidence in your ability to improve on this issue in the future, and I hope to support you in the future once you've demonstrated that. Best regards, Swarm X 19:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your comments. I totally agree that I should have unchecked the notify user box and left a single message. Sometimes the ease of Twinkle is a double-edged sword. Of course carelessness is never an excuse. Lesson learned. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 22:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutralmoved to oppose  Chzz  ►  04:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC) questions over depth of understanding of policy/guidelines. Re. Question 10 (and kinda my Q9), can you explain this more? The hist shows the user had had 2 warnings before the 3+4, plus 3 CSD warnings, and your own notice re. WP:AUTO - so I don't understand your saying, "The editor is editing his own page" and complaining about the warnings, when you'd issued 3 template warnings yourself. It also looks like templating the regulars. (I do have other concerns, partic. q12 - AN is an awful idea for something like that - so I'm leaning to oppose)  Chzz  ►  07:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for taking time to comment on this RfA. When I look at "warnings", I do not consider notification templates for CSD to be a warning. It is a notification about an article, not a specific editorial behavior that needs to be addressed. I can no longer see the edits you have questioned, but I remember at the time that I did not feel they were vandalism. The only warnings for actual vandalism were the level 3 and 4 that were issued by the other editor. The edits, to me, appeared to be the author tweaking the article. Even if the other editor felt they were vandalism, I do not think they rise to the level of needing an initial level 3 warning. To me, that is biting newcomers. As for "templating the regulars," the notice about biting newcomers is designed for the regulars, because it would be unlikely that newcomers would be biting other newcomers with warning templates. I guess I see a fundamental difference between warning templates and notification templates. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 14:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    XLinkBot had issued ((uw-spam1)) [1] and ((uw-spam2)) [2] though.  Chzz  ►  12:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I don't think you're quite ready yet. But I think you're a decent candidate, one who could succeed in another few months or so. :) ceranthor 00:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral more concerned about lack of writing experience than prods.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral per my stroked oppose !vote above. Candidate was not obligated to read my essay but took the time anyway and otherwise answered Kudpung's question correctly. I can't honestly keep an oppose !vote believing that the candidate has addressed the issue that brought me into oppose. That said, I am borderline support/neutral/oppose.--v/r - TP 18:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral. The editor has been enthusiastic in expanding nursing content, and was quite reasonable in my only interaction. I would be happy to support if the candidate had indicated wishing to devote more time to content issues, but I am troubled by some of the PRODs. I expect that if the candidacy is not successful now, that the editor will brush up on some PROD details and return in a few months and be acclaimed by the community. Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral You're on the right track...but the issues raised above are simply too outstanding for my to throw in my support for you at this time. Work on your weaker areas and come back in a few months :)--White Shadows Stuck in square one 21:16, 5 June 2011 (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