Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jerem43

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Jerem43

[edit]

Final (21/39/11); Ended Fri, 24 Jul 2009 11:23:14 (UTC)

Nomination

[edit]

Jerem43 (talk · contribs) – I would consider it an honor to nominate Jerem43 for adminship on Wikipedia. I have collaborated with him on several topics and have found the user to always be helpful, fair, and sober-minded, even when we don't agree. He has also done some great work on templates (even receiving a barnstar for this work) and the project as a whole would greatly benefit from this user having a couple of extra buttons to help keep things tidy and orderly. youngamerican (wtf?) 18:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Questions for the candidate

[edit]

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

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: Primarily vandalism related details, RFPP and the like.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: The templates that help establish Portals and WikiProjects. They simplify these tasks and make layout changes a lot easier. You can see examples of what I mean on the WP:Food, P:Food and P:Drink. I also have been working to make templates easier to use by updating the documentation so a general user can easily understand how to use them with out a degree in comp-sci. I am proud of the contributions I have made to articles, and a year ago would have probably boasted them here, but I have come to find that helping others in working on stuff has given me more satisfaction. The templates are just one aspect of that, making projects and portals look snappier and more professional as well as making them easier to contribute to is really what has been driving me lately.
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: Yes, I have been in conflict with others. I have found that my attitudes have changed over time when confronted with problems with other users. First I try to step back and allow the situation to cool, and then later use the tools provide on WP to settle the situation. The trick is to think before you act and use the preview button before you add something that is improper. And yes, there are situations I should have handled better but all in all I try to work with angels and keep the demons at bay.
Additional optional questions from Backslash Forwardslash
4. You are patrolling RFPP when you notice a new editor making large scale edits on page. All the edits have been reverted by two established users, who refer to a poll conducted three months ago as the 'consensus'. The page has been listed on RFPP by a third editor, who wishes to remain clear of the dispute. The new editor is becoming increasingly frustrated, and has begun to receive warnings about making personal attacks from the two established users. What administrative actions would you take, if any?
A: I would ask that all editors involved please take a step back, take some time to cool down and look at the overall picture. I would remind the first two editors that that consensus can change and that whole group might consider opening a discussion in order to see where consensus now stand. Based upon their responses and behaviors I would see what steps need to be taken from there. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional questions from S Marshall
5. I've been criticised for asking hypothetical XfD-related questions, so I'm using a real one. How would you have closed this CfD discussion? Please explain your thought processes in assessing the consensus in some detail.
A: Looking at that discussion, I think there was really no consensus on what to do, and would be hard pressed on the out come. I would have relisted to try to develop a better consensus as Black Falcon did for the original and based on its outcome I would have gone with a merge because of the oh so small merge tilt. I would also probably have read through the articles to see what at the center of the discussion. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional questions from Groomtech
6. Do you believe that Wikipedians have rights? If so, what will you do to uphold them?
A: Could you clarify so I don't misinterpret you question? WHat do you mean by rights? as a whole or on WP specifically?
Specifically with regard to Wikipedia. Groomtech (talk) 20:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional questions from — Σxplicit
7. Is there an instance in when you would indefinitely block a registered user without any prior warnings?
A: No, every user deserves a chance to redeem his or her self and you need to give them a chance to correct their behaviors. Indefinite blocks should only be handed out as last resort after other avenues have been exhausted. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. An IP vandalizes a page. You revert the vandalism and give the IP a final warning on its talk page. After that, the IP vandalizes your userpage. Summarizing, the IP was sufficiently warned and vandalized after a final warning. Would you block the IP yourself or rather report it to WP:AIV? Would you consider blocking the IP yourself a conflict of interest?
A: I would warn the offending party about their behaviors and if they continued I would ask a disinterest party to step in. Using your Admin rights to solve a dispute you are involved in is a serious coi issue; If I was involved in such a situation I would behave as if I was a normal user and log a complaint on the appropriate discussion board. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional optional questions from Ottawa4ever (talk)
9. This question is meant to be a AIV scenario; A newly created account (User A) posts an incidence of which is perceived as vandalism and is subsequently warned against doing so by a User B. User A subsequently removes the warning from his/her talk page. And another user, C (which is an IP with no edits until now) places the warning back. User A removes the warning again and C places it back. This repeats until User A has removed the warning a total of 3 times. User B (not C) subsequently reports User A for vandalism on AIV. Being on AIV how would you handle this. If any thing is unclear i will gladly clarify. Thanks Ottawa4ever (talk) 20:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A: I am going on the assumption that the warning is about the same, single, one-time incident, not multiple incidents, and it wasn't a blatant act of vandalism. User A is free to erase his talk page as he sees fit, so there is nothing wrong with the removal of the warning. By constantly re-adding the warning back to User A's talk page, User C maybe unaware that warnings are not required to be kept on the talk page, so I would inform he/she how warnings work. In response to User B's AIV report, I would look over the incident in question; and going on the assumption the situation is as assumed in my opening, I would inform User B it was a single incident. The basic warning about the incident on User A's talk page should be enough to inform him about User B's concerns.
Additional optional questions from ThaddeusB
10. What is your opinion about notability as it relates to the inclusion/exclusion of content on Wikipedia? That is, what do you think an ideal Wikipedia would look like in terms of content? Do you feel that anything the meets the general notability guidelines should be allowed (excluding what Wikipedia is not type articles), or do you feel that some things aren't notable even if they have been covered in depth by multiple reliable sources? Are there any types of articles that you feel are automatically notable; that is, worthy of inclusion just by being verifiable without direct proof of in depth coverage in multiple reliable sources? (To be clear, I am looking for your personal opinion, and hopefully an insight to the way you think, not a restatement of current policy.)
A: If there a re notable sources that meet the reliability standards, there should be coverage on the subject. Whether it is in a separate article or as part of an existing article depends on the amount of information available. There are several articles I am not a fan of, and there are articles I have created that others do not like, but since people have taken the time to investigate them and establish notability they should be allowed to stay.
11. Along the same lines, please pick one of the current specific notability guidelines (SNGs) such as an element of WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:NF, WP:CORP, etc. and explain why you think the current guideline is or is not a good indication of notability.
A:
Question from Pzrmd
12. Construct a timeline of the history of Wikipedia.
There has recently been discussion and general agreement that questions here should bear some relevance to the candidate's past or anticipated peformance in wikipedia. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 21:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A:


General comments

[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Jerem43 before commenting.

Discussion

[edit]
  • Comment I decided that the actions displayed recently does suggest that should this user be made an administrator, it would be detrimental to Wikipedia overall. This mainly stems from the removal of comments and questions from the user's own talk page. It is not unusual for users to clean up their own talk pages. But the talk page for this user suggests that this is not a standard practice. Doing this without addressing the questions suggests that the user is attempting to hide their own history. Doing this before the discussion has concluded and during a WP:RFA strengths this position. In addition to this, I believe that anyone that could be an administrator of any site, let alone of one that has such influence on mainstream society, should be able to show that they uphold all the policies and guidelines of the site. When Jerem43 is in the right, and I'm happy to say he often is, he might be very detailed and amiable in his discussion. However, in the disagreements I have read, including the one to which I was a party (Master_franchise), Jerem43 has shown himself to be easily offendable. His responses have violated the Civility policies and behavior guidelines. Specifically, he uses course language (e.g. referring to opposing edits as "crap"), makes accusations without evidence (e.g. claiming that I was making legal threats), and not reading and understanding an opposing argument (opinion). I encourage anyone and everyone to feel free to read the history of that article with its discussion. Also carefully examine the history of the article and history of the discussion. I can accept that Jerem43 has the seeds of good administration. However, his recently style and behavior in the face of an opposing position shows that seed needs time to mature. I actually believe this to be possible, as the edits to his own comments show that he knows when he is inappropriate and corrected text is much more appropriate for an administrator. Doubts remain, though, as perhaps these corrected edits only come in light of the WP:RFA. Edit: After posting this, I find on the article I mentioned a comment from jerem43. "I would seriously step away from this." The idea of suggesting that a user no longer participate in a discussion is so contrary to the core of Wikipedia's reason for existance. Wikipedia, and it's administrators, should be encouraging contribution and productive discussion, not discouraging it. I think this is the worst offense of the bunch, and this attitude alone should be reason enough not to grant adminship-- 152.16.10.191 (talk) 17:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you think you could provide diffs for Jerem's incivilitiy? Your claims are potentially very concerning, if true. Timmeh 17:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The discussion he is referring to involves an allegation by me that this user may be a sock puppet for a single purpose account Franchiseguru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for which I filed a a report here. The article in question, Master franchise, had a series of edits done by Franchiseguru that were based on information from a commercial site that provides professional franchise services to individual seeking to invest in a franchised business. There were some issues of copy and paste edits, which I corrected by verifying the information against the original article used in the creation of said article, and then copy editing and removing those problems.
Shortly after I had fixed the coi/copyright problems, I removed the citation link per WP:Spam. Almost immediately after I finished making the corrections, the IP user reverted all of the changes, restoring the problems and spam links. He did this repeatedly stating that he was going to enforce all copyright laws in regards to the issue, as stated on the article talk page. I warned him on his talk page using a standard level 1 boiler plate template ({{uw-advert1}}) about the repeated addition of links to a commercial site; his claim of a personal attack refers to that warning I gave him. His claim of incivility was based on me referring to the problematic additions as crap. The tone of his original post implied that he was accusing me of both lying and plagiarism by stating that the changes I made to the article after the copy editing were not taken from the Entrepreneur Magazine article but were directly copied from the commercial site. In my final post I stated that I believe this user to be responsible for the questionable additions and that I believe him to be a sock.
In regards to the complaint I filed, I stated on both the complaint page and the article talk page that based evidence of his quick response to my edits, the manner in which he edited the article and his repeated blanket reversion of all of my edits back to the problematic version of the article lead me to believe that he was possibly a sock puppet trying to keep the links to the commercial site within the article. Based on my belief, I filed the request that he be investigated as a possible sock puppet. I also warned him that I was possibly going file an ANI report because his extensive knowledge of policy, editing, behaviors and refusal to use a registered account lead me to believe he might be gaming the system in some manner.
I filed the investigation request in order to allow uninvolved, dispassionate individuals to look into the matter in order to confirm or disprove my beliefs. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 18:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I think the way the question (12)stands now doesnt seem relevent, but i think it could be developed to sound meaningful and create insight in the relation to admin duties such as policy practices in the past and what a users beliefs on policy in the future. Just some thoughts Ottawa4ever (talk) 15:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support
[edit]
Support - first glance looks good: solid percentage of mainspace contribs, solid talkpage usage, etc. May change if horrible issues are brought up, but I see no problems yet. → ROUX ₪ 11:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Support as nom. youngamerican (wtf?) 11:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. First look seems rather concerning (skimpy answers to questions being the first red flag) but further investigation shows that the user is on the whole a very constructive one. I was going to go neutral but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. (also a tad worried over age but nowadays who cares?)  GARDEN  says no to drama 11:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Age? What did I miss? → ROUX ₪ 12:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, considering that Jeremy is a "25-year veteran of the [fast food] industry", I wouldn't think he'd be too young to be an admin... :) Jafeluv (talk) 12:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Woops. That's what you get for assuming, I guess. I figured the signs pointed to a preteen but evidently not. Apologies. (Then again, maybe I don't like older admins!)  GARDEN  says no to drama 13:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And 'veteran' could mean just his career.. and since he wasn't a take-away dude when he was 1.. maybe he's even older? Who cares, anyway :) — DeontalkI'm BACK! 15:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm pretty sure that "veteran" does mean just his career. Otherwise it would be "25-year-old veteran", and that wouldn't really make sense in the context anyway. Jafeluv (talk) 08:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Trustworthy editor with good contributions. Your brief answers to the questions and the fact that you've been around since 2006 and this is your first RfA indicate that you probably don't consider adminship to be such a big deal (do correct me if I'm wrong). I see you didn't even mention your GA contributions (Burger King and Burger King legal issues, at least) in your answer to Q2. This may be just plain modesty or a conscious omission based on how candidates' "audited contributions" have been handled in RfA recently, but in either case I like it. Good luck. Jafeluv (talk) 12:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support → prior interactions with this user have been both positive & productive. –xenotalk 13:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support His contributions to Wikipedia and its various projects has shown Jeremy to be an effective editor and overall contributor. The additional tools will only serve to help him to continue the quest to improve our space here.--Chef Tanner (talk) 13:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Support No problems that I can see.--Giants27 (c|s) 13:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC) Opposing.--Giants27 (c|s) 15:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Unless I'm missing something flagrant. Wisdom89 (T / C) 13:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC) Abstaining. Wisdom89 (T / C) 01:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support He looks like a good contributor to me. – DakPowers (Talk) 14:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Keepscases (talk) 15:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Looks like a very solid editor. Thousands upon thousands of edits on a broad sample of topics. Staxringold talkcontribs 15:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Move to opposeSupport Why not? -FASTILY (TALK) 17:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Definitely... Until It Sleeps Wake me 18:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Why not?? America69 (talk) 19:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support — this user is a bit tetchy, but he knows his stuff and can judge consensus intelligently.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 20:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Good Track and user has been around since Sept 2006.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Moral support I've been working with Jeremy as a WP:FOOD member for years, and I can trust him as an admin in the desired areas he wants to contribute to with the bits.--Caspian blue 23:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Solid editor, not perfect but good enough, long running snipe wars don't worry be since appears contained, and I'm certainly not going to castigate him over calling another editors' comment "crap" after I did much the same thing not long before my own RfA, mine cost me 15 of my 24 opposes. I passed, but looks like Jeremy won't be that lucky. Oh well, there's next time. Clean up the things that are annoying people here before you bring it back, fella, though.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support A major contributor to Wikipedia. Sometimes a bit confrontational, but otherwise trustworthy and collaborative. I'm confident he wouldn't abuse the tools. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. –BuickCenturyDriver 5:14 pm, Today (UTC−4)
  16. Support - why not NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 18:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: this user created an account on 6-19-09 and has made only 14 edits, 3 of which are to rfas. -FASTILY (TALK) 01:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support I think its more a moral support. I think Jeremy is promising and my kudos do go out to him as an editor. Ottawa4ever (talk) 23:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support A solid and good editor. --Siva1979Talk to me 13:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Hope you continue to improve your diplomatic skills, but Im not seeing enough issues to oppose a good contributor. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Positive interactions with this user in the past. Seems dedicated and helpful. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support I thought it was an excellent answer to Q7. Shows a lack of power-hunger. Pzrmd (talk) 10:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
  1. Oppose for now, see comment above; I think admins should know basic rules of how to create disambig. pages. — \`CRAZY`(lN)`SANE`/ (talk • contribs) 11:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I respectfully submit that is incredibly nitpicky. Creating disambig pages has nothing to do with the admin skillset. Have you any reason to believe the user would not be capable with admin functions? → ROUX ₪ 11:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There are many admin functions that involve disambiguation pages: WP:RM, WP:MDP, etc. Dekimasuよ! 02:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I must agree with roux. If putting a template in the wrong spot disqualifies one from adminship, I can think of a couple of places where arbcom could have stripped me. youngamerican (wtf?) 11:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Secondary conversation moved to talk page.  Frank  |  talk  14:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't going to say this as I assumed someone else would - but the {{disambiguation}} template is one of very few maintenance templates that go on the bottom of the article - most (80-90% most likely) go at the top.  GARDEN  says no to drama 13:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, but he also did not introduce the article, he just listed the articles needing disambiguation. I know it's not a big deal, but it's something an administrator should have read up on already. — \`CRAZY`(lN)`SANE`/ (talk • contribs) 13:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not really sure how you can justify "apparent lack of knowledge in the general editing realm" when the user has over ten thousand edits to mainspace alone, and all but 389 of them manual (not automated) edits. You may wish to rethink this. → ROUX ₪ 13:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose for now. Jeremy, it looks like you have a habit of making careless mistakes and then not looking back to fix them. Yesterday you created an AfD with an odd edit summary (a mistake, I assume) which didn't mention that it was an AfD. And then you turned Ham Sandwich into a dab page without fixing 40+ links to it which had previously gone directly to the page about the rock band ... not to mention the fact that the dab template was out of place and the title of the dab page didn't follow WP:DAB policy (though, I mention that last because I think there should be exceptions for "likely typo" scenarios). Looking through your recent talkpage archives I'm a bit troubled by sections such as this and this and the edit history of Template talk:it icon. I won't comment on the issue being raised by 152.16.10.191 because I don't really know the whole story. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 15:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Being human I make mistakes, and I admit to them. The AfD summary was an accidental paste, I was moving some text and I forgot what was on my clipboard when I went to put the summary in. I went to hit the backspace key and hit the enter key instead. The Userbox issue was me trying to be bold based upon a misinterpretation of the policy regarding userboxes, as you can see in the linked discussion (a little hard to read as we were bouncing back between talk pages, the full conversation is here), Xeno informed me of my error and I now understand what goes where. I honestly hate dealing with disambiguation pages because I haven't done enough of them and do not know enough about them. You will find I have created very few of them and when I have I screwed them up. I didn't fix the links because I was in the middle of a 40 hours in three shifts week and did not have time to sit down for a good length of time; I was going to get to them today after a much needed nap. You will find that that my normal course of action is to fix said links, please take look at the Portion Control (band) move I did a while back to confirm this. The {{it}} template edit was due to a confusion on my part, there are several similar templates that did different things, I was trying to figure out how they were different and accidentally blanked it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerem43 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. I have to agree with Soap above. When you created the dab page without cleaning up after yourself, it shows that you are not as thorough as you should be as an administrator. Admins must be thorough when deleting pages (switching links and checking redirects to the deleted page which are bothe things similar to what you skipped out on the dab creation), investigating vandalism reports, investigating page histories at WP:RFPP, and during dispute resolution. Also, I agree with Floquenbeam about your demeanor at User talk:Jerem43#Re: Message regarding Natick Collection, and your lack of dispute resolution with the IP you were in an argument with. If you receive the tools it will not be a terrible thing for Wikipedia, but I hope that my oppose will help you remember to be thorough in your work and to have a professional demeanor. Malinaccier (talk) 18:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose - I analyzed your edits. You've some nice edits, but I've to oppose per Soap and Malinaccier. AdjustShift (talk) 18:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose The above opposes really don't bother me all that much. However, I've taken a more thorough look over the master franchise situation which was mentioned in the discussion section. First, your labeling of the IP's edits as vandalism was inappropriate. His view was definitely valid, and he wasn't intentionally causing disruption. In fact, he was discussing the issue with you on the talk page. Although he may not be aware of what a reliable source is, he was making the edits in good faith, and the text added using that source didn't look all that non-neutral. The warning on his talk page was also inappropriate, as the added material wasn't promotional. Even if it were, the addition of it would not be vandalism. Based on the above evidence, I get the feeling you would be a bit block happy, especially when you become engaged in an edit war with an editor you don't agree with. In addition, the vague answer to Q1 doesn't give me the specifics on where you plan to work as an admin. I'd like to see the specific areas so that I can evaluate whether or not you have sufficient experience in those areas. Please note that I would be willing to support a future RFA if, during the next few months, you consistently show that you've learned from your mistakes. Timmeh 19:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Weak oppose - Overall the candidate's contributions look to be solid but I'm not finding much to help me judge his fitness as an administrator. Normally that'd not be enough to bother me but the answers to the questions presented thus far are not very confidence inspiring; they seem a bit on the shallow side. They also appear to be attempts at staking out a "safe" stance - if the answer to Q8 is any indication, it looks like the candidate would be the type of administrator who defers to process for its own sake, even when the end result is obvious. Administrators should not be afraid to make common-sense decisiosn even when process dictates otherwise. I am open to reconsidering my !vote based upon further review of the candidate's edits and answers to subsequent questions but for now I just don't have the confidence level I'm looking for. Shereth 20:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to say I am not staking out safe answers, I really do believe in being cautious when dealing with other people I haven't dealt with before. I tend to be give brief, direct answers when responding to questions. If you would like me to elaborate on any answers, please ask. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 03:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose per Plastikspork's diffs. The sudden jumps in warnings make me feel that he will be too block-happy if he gets the tools. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose Moving to oppose because of incorrect answers to questions 7 and 8, and problematic answers to questions 4 and 5. These indicate a lack of sufficient policy understanding at this time. I don't see any outstanding conduct or personality problems, so I would probably be prepared to support once Jerem43 gained more familiarity with how admins do things. Looie496 (talk) 23:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose for the time being. If you can come back in 6 months with improvements and no major issues, then you'll have my vote. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose. Conspicuously heavy-handed now (and turning a deaf ear to legitimate complaints, e.g. here) without the tools; it would be worse with extra buttons. — Athaenara ✉ 00:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. (Edit conflict) I have several concerns (shown in the oppose and neutral sections), but the one that really struck was this diff given by 152.16.10.191. IP editors can be valid contributors as well, and to remove a seemingly legitimate question, even if you believe the IP might be a sockpuppet, does not seem appropriate to me. Please feel to follow up with me if you feel that I made a mistake in my interpretation, but for now, I feel like I have no choice but to oppose for the time being. NW (Talk) 00:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose Your answers are shallow and provide a lack of insight, but I'm not under this section heading because of that. I am concerned that you aren't overly aware of new users, the difficulty facing them and indeed, contributing IPs. A lot of new users need a hand to work things out, and it is important that administrators are, at the very least, willing to assist these users. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 02:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose. While it's unfortunate to keep harping on a single disambiguation page, you also moved the original contents of Ham Sandwich to the new title by cut-and-paste when you created the new dab. That's a pain to fix and implies that you aren't aware of correct move procedures and/or that you don't know what information needs to be retained under our licensing policies. These are things that are absolutely necessary knowledge for administrators. Dekimasuよ! 02:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No I didn't, I used the move tab to move the Ham Sandwich (band) article. I din't move anything else. Are you referring to the description of a ham sandwich? --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 02:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you did. The original contents of the capitalized version were the description of a ham sandwich, which you cut in this edit and pasted to the lowercase version in this edit. You may be confused now about what the original contents of the capitalized version were because that page was subsequently moved to Ham sandwich (disambiguation) (using the move tab, by User:Soap. By the way, your original reason for moving the band's article--that "the food known as a ham sandwich is older"--is also not one of the accepted reasons for changing a page's title. Dekimasuよ! 13:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose. I'm very underwhelmed by the answers above but this wouldn't necessarily put me in this section. However, the candidate's approach to dispute resolution (per Timmeh, Athaenara, Floquenbeam) is very much not acceptable from an admin or someone wishing to be one. And it should be noted that this all happened in the last few days. -- Deville (Talk) 04:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose, candidate could use a bit more experience. Also, Soap as well as Malinaccier and Timmeh raise valid concerns. Cirt (talk) 05:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Too many concerns raised above, sorry. Please come back in ~6 months. → ROUX ₪ 06:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose. This was tough - I hate to go back on my first !vote but the concerns raised above are potentially problematic. Perhaps in a few months and more experience. -FASTILY (TALK) 06:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Way too many concerns. Pmlineditor 10:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose, per answer to Q7. Nakon 14:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose Per the sudden jump in warnings and the dab pages come back in 3-6 months.--Giants27 (c|s) 15:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose. Sorry, question seven alone pushes me to this side. I think a few months more experience is needed here. Good luck. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Weak Oppose per Dekimasu and others. While Jerem43's contributions are generally good, there are several niggly bits pointed out here which cause me to believe there is a lack of understanding regarding some basic editing guidelines and procedures. Perhaps in a few months. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Changed to oppose per the answer to Q7; AGF only goes so far, and sysops in particular need to understand that. It won't necessarily be "bad" if you're promoted, but I can't support due to the concerns raised. On the other hand, it seems you're receiving plenty of constructive criticism, so if you take these comments to heart and work on areas you're lacking in, you should pass no problem in a few months. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd just like to note that I agree with Juliancolton in saying that you should run for adminship again in the future. Realize that this is a chance to improve, and improve :). I'd hate to lose a good future admin because of a bad first RfA. Best of luck, Malinaccier (talk) 20:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Per Q7. Stifle (talk) 20:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Regretful Oppose from Support I went back like I do everyday to all RFA's to see what has been going on, and when I saw the answer to question 7, I had to oppose. Sorry. America69 (talk) 23:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Per concerns raised above, especially answers to Q8 and Q7. — Aitias // discussion 01:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose - would like to see some mediation experience. I think it would help address a lot of the issues above, as well. Xavexgoem (talk) 02:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Sorry, but a quick glance at above and your answers to questions demonstrate a lack of thought. RFA is a big thing, and you should have thought your answers out more carefully. I'm also seeing that you're not cautious enough in editing, and while, yes, Wikipedia encourages people to be bold, however not reckless, and I get senses that your style of editing is reckless at times. Sorry. Steve Crossin The clock is ticking.... 07:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Per this incomprehensible edit that Soap brought up. I'm sorry, but administrators need to be able to communicate. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 15:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC) Indenting; perhaps that edit summary was a copy-paste error, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 15:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. OpposePer 7 and 8.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 22:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose Per Giants27. --TitanOne (talk) 06:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose per the concerns raised by others. -- Nomader (Talk) 15:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose per the diff in the comments section, concerning the removal of a talk page post. Simply because a user is an IP does not mean that they should be treated with contempt, and their concerns ignored. This is, after all, supposed to be the encyclopedia everyone can edit. MacMedtalkstalk 21:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose; no need for me to pile on with the concerns. — madman bum and angel 23:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Shouldn't this be in the neutral section? Aditya (talk) 11:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose Yea ... ahhh .. no. Not at this time. While several of the "opposes" above I think are overly harsh, I think you need to address and improve upon the items mentioned. Please don't stop trying, but you'll need some improvement to succeed at an RfA. Sorry. — Ched :  ?  09:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose, too many concerns listed. Wizardman 17:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Strong Oppose. Per comments listed above. More experience is required. -- Myfavouritecolourispink 18:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Oppose. In my view too confrontational, heavy-handed, and dismissive of others' views to make a good admin. --DAJF (talk) 23:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose per answers and above mentioned diffs  Chzz  ►  15:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oppose You do seem to be on the right track, but (as with many others) the questions show me you're not quite there yet. Q7: Straight-off indef blocks shouldn't be handed out like candy, and good faith should be assumed, but AGF isn't a suicide pact. If someone's obviously not here to help, block them. It's not uncommon (not common either, though) for an account to be blocked indef before it's edited simply because it has a highly offensive username. Q8: Generally userpage vandalism doesn't put you into the "involved" category. Smack 'em with a warning if it wasn't too bad or was amusing, otherwise, feel free to send them to time-out. Anyway, like I said, you're on your way, and I hope to see you here again in a few months with some lessons learned. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 20:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
Neutral for the time being. Given the response to my oppose vote, I've realized that basing my vote solely on one aspect of knowledge in mainspace editing may have been misguided. — \`CRAZY`(lN)`SANE`/ (talk • contribs) 13:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I see lots of barnstars and thank you's on your talk page, and the following concern is not enough, in itself, to oppose over anyway, and I can't spend the time to review enough contributions to see if this is a one-off problem or not. So, I'll stick this down here in the Neutral section, as a data point for people to consider. I'm somewhat concerned by the situation at Natick Collection and Talk:Natick Collection. It appears that you are having a long-running content dispute with an IP editor, but have never attempted to pursue any of the options available to you at WP:DR, and are instead just reverting each other and talking past each other on various talk pages. I'm concerned about both the dismissive attitude at User talk:Jerem43#Re: Message regarding Natick Collection ("I will defer to their knowledge of the English language over that of a WPI college student."), and the fact that a couple of days ago, after an admittedly vandalistic edit to make a point by the IP editor (worthy of perhaps a warning) you reported the IP editor you're in dispute with to WP:AIV. I'm curious why no other attempts at dispute resolution have been tried. The IP editor's edits to Shoppers World (Framingham, Massachusetts) can be considered vandalism, but all of his other edits are in good faith, yet you're calling them all vandalism when you revert them. I have no opinion on the underlying content dispute, but I'd welcome some comment by you as to how you plan on approaching this situation if it continues, and how you would have handled that request at AIV if you were an uninvolved admin. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, I have been flouting the vandalism thing with him a bit too much. My frustration with the situation goes back to his insistence on changing the article to reflect corporate adspeak from General Growth Properties website: He originally changed the article based on how they named the facility in their advertising materials, against the common name policy. Every few months he would come back with a different reason why he was changing the grammar of the article, ignoring my counter arguments and insisting the grammar has to be the way he says it need to be. I should have handled it better with a dispute resolution request. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 20:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral for now. Your response to Q1 is slightly vague (perhaps consider elaborating on what exactly you would like to do); also, waiting on the other questions. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    See above. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral while I figure out what's going on with the IP in the comments section. It seems to me that the IP made a statement about possible violation of copyright laws and about enforcing those laws (admittedly rather earnestly) which you seem to have interpreted as a personal attack, as an accusation of plagiarism, and as a legal threat. I don't see anything like that in the IP's comment. Hopefully this is a one-off thing but I'm going to watch from here for now. ([1], [2]) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 18:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral for now. Not great answers to the questions and along with civility issues raised by the IP, and by Soap, makes me slightly unsure. AtheWeatherman 18:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral for the moment. I'm not sure why this required a jump from level 1 to level 3, or a uw-vandalism4 here. I will have to think about it some more. Plastikspork (talk) 20:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Another jump to 3 here and from 1.5 to 4 here and a 1 to 4 jump here. Also, an IP clearing his/her talk page doesn't necessarily need to be reverted as it is confirmation that the warning was read? Plastikspork (talk) 21:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You are correct that there is no need to revert talk page blanking, as blanking is an indication that it was read and nothing more. It is, however, a common mistake to think the warnings need to stay part of the public record. --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral I'm not quite ready to oppose, but I hate the answer to question 4. When a single editor demands to reopen an issue that was definitively settled in the recent past, admins need to make it clear that such behavior is disruptive and won't be tolerated. Having to repeatedly re-argue topics at endless length is one of the strongest forces driving good editors away, so wimpyness in this respect is very harmful. Looie496 (talk) 21:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC) Moved to oppose. Looie496 (talk) 23:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral per Q 5 (I disagree with Jerem43's rationale), per the IP's diff, and per [[3]] (not going to pile on though) Aditya (talk) 08:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral: you seem to have reasonable answers to the question above, but still debating your editing? South Bay (talk) 10:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral:However, this [4] article talk page edit should be pointed out. Shinerunner (talk) 10:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral - I have some concerns, but not so serious as to oppose. Bearian (talk) 19:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral - No single admin knows all the rules and guidelines, so a few misplaced templates don't bother me too much. But they all should have a very good idea (gut feeling) of when there might be a guideline or policy on a specific type of edit, and how to search for that guideline to educate themselves. I think if we see a little more of that ability to branch out, and to do something correctly the first time you try it after having researched it and seen examples of other uses (and to stay away from a topic if it just isn't your area of expertise) then it will be a much easier RFA. Just my $.02.    7   talk | Δ |   07:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutral - Not wishing to "pile on," but I too have concerns about the depth of your policy knowledge as shown by the answers to several questions. I would strongly encourage you to continue your article work (which is quite solid from what I've seen) and not let this RfA bother you. If you want to run again in the future, I suggest you take some time and read a lot of policy documents and possibly also ask questions/make suggestions on the corresponding talk pages. However, I would like to point out that being an admin is "nothing special" really, so if you are content to work on articles please do so and don't worry about RfA. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Neutral ( Read as moral support) : While all my personal interactions with Jerem43 were always good and pleasing , there are some concerns that doesnt allow me to jump to support section. Nevertheless, he is a very good editor at wikipedia and his contributions to WP:Food is something really appreciable -- Tinu Cherian - 09:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Jerem43&oldid=1085557889"