Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jersey Devil

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.

Jersey Devil

[edit]

Final (45/21/9) Ended 22:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Jersey Devil (talk · contribs) – has had a registered account for over a year and has over 4,000 edits, with some to difficult articles such as Ollanta Humala, where vandalism [1], [2] has been a big issue in the past and Jersey Devil demonstrated tact in dealing with this, while at the same time adding well referenced material [3], [4]. He has been an active participant with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Peru, Portal:Peru and Portal:New Jersey pages, as well with Afd discussions. His experience around the deletion pages indicates to me that he has an excellent grasp of our policies. [5], [6], [7] Jersey Devil is alert to issues of concern, posting helpful information to AN/I and other areas. [8], [9]. I feel confident that Jersey Devil will be a fine admin.--MONGO 06:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination. Nomination withdrawn.--Jersey Devil 06:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  1. Support per nominator. Mostly Rainy 09:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 09:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Of course.--MONGO 10:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support, naturally! Phaedriel ♥ The Wiki Soundtrack!♪ - 10:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - I see no reason why not. He is a good member, Meets my criteria for a good admin and could use the admin tools. --Draicone (talk) 10:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. DarthVader 10:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support, having worked with him on WikiProject Peru and several articles, he has been outstandingly helpful.--Gabbec 10:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Changing vote on the basis that he helpfully stood up to my questions and accusations ;) without getting offended :D ALthough I will note that you should increase your edit summaries, admins are accountable and need to explain every action, edit summaries are important. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 11:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support On the basis that edit summary usage is inreased when and if admin status is granted. Otherwise a good all-round user. Seivad 11:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Mild Support I was quite shocked to see Jersey Devil up for adminship, because the whole fiasco involving Striver remains so prevalent in my mind. However, I must agree, like I stated in the request for comment in question, that the RfC was not necessary. Some of the behavior mentioned - which may have been (not necessarily was) interpreted as wikistalking Striver - was in fact true, but because he stopped at request and weathered the RfC quite well and because the RfC was a full four months ago, I won't make that a huge dark mark on his record. For the most part, I'm satisfied enough to support (although please use edit summaries more often). -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 12:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Seems to have what it takes to become a good admin.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  12:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support good candidate --rogerd 13:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Naconkantari 13:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support - good solid contributor with knowledge and perspective we need; works well with others. Tom Harrison Talk 14:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Weak Support - Jumps to WP: links a little quickly in dscussion, particularly for civility etc., but much better to have a strict sense of civility than a weak sense of civility like some admins. Doesn't seem like the kind of person that would throw his weight around as an admin. Karwynn (talk) 15:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you explain (perhaps with a diff) what you mean by "jumps to WP: links a little quickly in discussion". (I'm not challenging your comment, just trying to make sure I understand the problem). Thanks, --A. B. 17:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Weak support Seems like a fine candidate--As long as he starts using edit summaries, I'm fine with this candidate. It's very easy to get into the habit of not adding edit summaries, and I also suppose that no one warned him or recommended that he do so. AdamBiswanger1 15:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support per nom.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 15:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Excellent candidate with whom I personally have had great experiences, hence I will overlook the edit summaries. However, please always use edit summaries even for minor edits. Xoloz 16:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support I think I somehow got involved with JD's RfC - but can't remember how! Seems worthy of adminship. Computerjoe's talk 17:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support per nom. 1ne 17:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC) Changed to oppose.[reply]
  20. Merovingian (T, C, @) 18:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. Cool nick :D --Terrancommander 18:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support we need more specialiest admins Jaranda wat's sup 20:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support, but please use more edit summaries. They just make life easier for us all. =) RandyWang (raves/rants) 00:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support, in my experience with this user, Jersey showed tact and patience in dealing with a troublesome editor at Democratic Party (United States). · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 00:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. Seems ready, and I haven't seen anything here or anywhere that really convinces me otherwise. Having had an RfC is not grounds for automatic oppose if he learned from it, otherwise RfC is even more pointless.Voice-of-All 02:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. - Mailer Diablo 07:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support, per nom, opposing voters do not convince me abakharev 08:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Change to Support based on strong answer to 1ne regarding spamming during an Afd. The answer shows a strong understanding of Wikipedis policy and problems enforcing it. I hope the people opposing will read the answer and support this nom. FloNight talk 12:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support --Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support, helpful, hardworking user, extremely well aware of policy and the meaning of adminship. Bishonen | talk 17:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  31. Yes. KillerChihuahua?!? 05:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support, a good candidate.--Aldux 02:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support to conter the votestack of the opposers. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. In my encounters with Jersey Devil, I've seen nothing but good contributions. --Aude (talk contribs) 22:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Weak Support. I haven't had much encounters with Jersey Devil, so I can't take a more stronger position. I would be just thankful if Jersey, unlike another particular admin, would be a bit more kind and also a bit more willing to ignore other's faults when the discussion is heated. Not saying he is not so, but just a bit more. --Aminz 00:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support as a consistently strong editor and member of the community. --Mmx1 03:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  37. Support (as I thought I'd already done) per nom and inasmuch as I am altogether confident that Jersey will not abuse or misuse (even if avolitionally, through ignorance) the tools and will, if possessed of the tools, benefit the project. Joe 04:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. 'Support per nom. 172 | Talk 04:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Despite the edit summary usage issue I think he'd make a good admin and wouldn't abuse the tools. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 05:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support, opposition is quite unconvincing, and looks like a good potential admin. NoSeptember 06:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support to counter the votestacking of opposers.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 10:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support, I think that he has earned this right. Messhermit 12:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Meets 2/3 support GangstaEB~(penguin logs) 22:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  44. Support. Low chance of pulling a Lord Voldemort and abusing the tools. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 00:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Yes, please. --Nearly Headless Nick 12:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose. I'm honestly sorry - you seem like a great contributor with a good attitude, but the edit summary usage just sticks in my craw. I can understand leaving it out from time to time when it's your own userpage or something, but I like to get an idea of what people did by looking over histories. Such poor usage indicates either a lack of attention to detail, or a lack of systemic understanding, neither of which are traits becoming an admin. --Aguerriero (talk) 14:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose as per above TruthCrusader 15:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Weak oppose edit summaries, conduct at AfD per your RFC. (Not necessarily "wrong", but not confidence-inspiring either) - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I would disagree...the Rfc was valid, and the purpose of the Rfc is to have people comment. Many there said to not do this again, and he hasn't in the 4 months since, so I believe he has learned from that and respected the communities requests. The edit summaries are something he has overlooked recently and I see that he is now already correctly adjusting this as well.--MONGO 18:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's why it's "weak", buddy. - CrazyRussian talk/email 11:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Per the reasons above; he fails my criterion related to edit cummary usage. --Wisden17 18:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose in my recent encounter with him, he did nothing to make me comfortable with the idea of what he'd do with admin access. Has the right idea, but seems too heavy-handed at the moment. --InShaneee 19:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose per InShaneee. Could you explain that? 1ne 20:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose - I'm not one to dig up one diff from two years ago and hold it over someone forever, but that comment cited by InShaneee concerns me as well. We don't need any more admins on hair-trigger alert. (ESkog)(Talk) 20:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC) Changed to neutral per MONGO's reply [reply]
    Not to talk for Jersey, but looking over the incident, it relates to his comments at AN/I [10] about the editor doing many internal spammings for votes. Jersey devil was trying to ensure a fair vote so he posted the evidence of all the spamming. InShanee responded at AN/I and stated that the editor had been warned. Jersey Devil was concerned that the spamming was going to continue and discussed it there and on InShanee's talk page as well. Later on AN/I, InShanee posted a link which did indeed indicate that this same editor stated that they were now going to spam off wiki for votes. I would say that Jersey Devil was correct in his determination that a block would have been not too harsh...maybe jumping the gun, but maybe Jersey Devil is more aware of the editing style of this editor than others may be. As it turned out, InShanee issued a 48 hour block afterall.--MONGO 20:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose as per InShaneee. --ManiF 22:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose It may just be me, but an average of 10 edits per day is a bit disconcerting, as is the weak use of edit summaries. Michael 07:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose for low edit summary use. --Guinnog 16:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose per Guinnog. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose - per InShaneee -- Tawker 17:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose per my own personal reasons and reasons mentioned above, especially the diff by InShaneee. Pepsidrinka 00:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose For the same reasons I have given on other nominations recently, namely Misza13, Grendelkhan, and others. That is: The unusual support, both in numbers, and in the cliquiness involved. Although the number of supporters is not as large at this rfa as in the others that I opposed, the support editors are basically the same. The same or many of the same editors are supporting all of the nominations as of late. I still find this questionable and highly suspicious. I will continue to oppose these cliquey rfa's as a matter of principle. If however one of these rfa candidates shows me a reason to change my vote, I will change it. Shannonduck talk 01:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    How exactly does one prove that they're not in the cabal? --InShaneee 02:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    For one, by not acting like Misza13 and his supporters did when I opposed his rfa. (The one opposition). If you check it out and then check out the threat that was made to me on my page, you may be a bit disconcerted. I will admit that JerseyDevil did not act like Misza13 did, at least. Still too many clique votes for me. Shannonduck talk 04:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    RFAs always has a large number of support voters and it's not many people who votes in that, you have to go back to December 2005 to find an RFA with less than 25 votes. It's always high now because the community is growing. It doesn't make any sense for a small selective group of people to pass editors. I hope you understand that. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 04:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Shannon, I'm supporting the nom and I never heard of him until this RFA. With RFA's I review the nom to see if I want to add my opinion. Most RFA's I do not find the need to say anything because others are expressing my opinion. In this case I felt that the nom gave an excellent explanation of his comment regarding spamming and seems to understand how to apply policy effectively. I did not think others were expressing my opinion so I voiced my opinion. If there are strong differing opinions I will often give an opinion. Otherwise I skip nom unless I know the nom very well and want to share the fun of their promotion. I think many other users have their own criteria for deciding which RFA's to participate in. FloNight talk 04:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose - In my short time in Wikipedia i have only seen a few posts from him, he seemed eager to get user zereshk blocked. Thus per Inshaneee. --Spahbod 05:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose I agree with Lingeron. Khorshid 22:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose. He's too confrontational, and engages in editorial conflicts too often. He has a lengthy history of editorial wars in the Islam related articles.--Zereshk 01:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose per several reasons given above. This Fire Burns Always 02:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Strongly Oppose per reasons given here and in the Neutral votes. --HResearcher 12:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose Those who are granted administrative privileges should be as calm and tranquil as humanly possible. DragonRouge 14:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Don't meet my standards. GangstaEB~(penguin logs) 21:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  19. Oppose. Good user, but I want to see more time pass and edit summary usage improve. I also have minor concerns about his understanding of blocking policy, per the diffs given by others. -- SCZenz 02:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose for now. Low edit summary and rash behavior seems troubling, but can be fixed. -- nae'blis (talk) 04:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose. In my own experience (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/SpinnWebe), was too ready to engage in ad hominem arguments; his frequent personal attacks in the face of reasoned opposition, constant accusations of "meatpuppetry", etc., finally led me to lose my own temper, unfortunately. Not behavior I expect from an admin. --Spinn 14:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Neutral Very bad edit summaries and a really big headed / controversial acceptance of this RFA makes me wary of voting support. Similarily edits to articles are goo so am loath to vote oppose. Maybe just a little too confrontational too.. try again in a few months - and start using edit summaries!!! --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 09:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC) changing vote --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 11:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain what you mean by "big headed/ controversial acceptance"? Thanks.--MONGO 10:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes To paraphrase a line from Borat, I am a strong man, I will crush my opponents, I will be powerful...like Stalin...and not tolerate people who are bad (vandals). If you do not vote for me I will take power. that seems quite big headed to me. Apologies though because it does sound like I was being rude but I couldnt think of another word to use :D however humulity is an important part of responsibility. Answer to question 3 isn't very brilliant either... --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 10:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He is referring to the Borat quote that I made in my initial entry. I had actually removed it before but the database lock deleted my change so it came back. Anyway, I would like to tell you that I don't really "compare myself to Stalin" nor am I going to "take power" if I am not voted for :). I was just trying to break the ice with a joke, I apologize if it was taken the wrong way and have removed it again.--Jersey Devil 10:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok fair point, the thing is it is easy to misinterpret what people say on wikipedia as you cant see facial expressions (for example). I was just reviewing your edits and contributions now so I may change my vote.. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 10:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Netural Sorry, I have to give a neutral because of his horrendous edit summary usage. 71% for major edits and 4% for minor edits is no where near that set out by my standards —Mets501 (talk) 12:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral Sorry but I will likely change to oppose unless the nom clears up the problems with the uploaded images. I raise this as an issue because the nom brought it up in the answer to a question. The image *VOA_Logo.jpg* [11] that you uploaded has a disclaimer that appears to conflict with the public domain license. [12] Other image *Image:Ricardo Alarcon C-Span.jpg* [13] seems to violate Wikipedia fair use policy. I didn't look at all the images so may have more problems. FloNight talk 16:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Change to Support based on strong answer to 1ne regarding spamming during an Afd. The answer shows a strong understanding of Wikipedis policy and problems enforcing it. Will work on correcting any problems with images with the nom. FloNight talk 12:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that you are incorrect about the VOA logo. AFAIK, anything produced by VOANews is public domain. The disclaimer you cite says that anything they produce may be used without requesting permission, the only exception being that they use some material licensed from the AP that cannot be copied for obvious reasons. The VOA logo is a TRADEMARK, not a copyrighted image. In other words, you cannot use their logo and claim to be the VOA. Trademark is independent of copyright issues. BigDT 16:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This sentence seems to conflict with public domain and is also outside of the free content licenses that WP uses. "Credit for any use of VOA material should be given to voanews.com, Voice of America, or VOA, and we ask that you not abridge or edit any VOA material which you may use." Regarding trademark, I had the impression that when the U.S. government trademarks logos, stamps, and other graphic designs that they intend to take them out of public domain. FloNight talk 17:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral - I'm really on the fence ... I can't quite bring myself to oppose, but the conflict situation discussed below bothers me. I read the RFC and even though I think that Jersey Devil acted in good faith and was not at fault, administrators who are potentially controversial BEFORE their selection aren't a spectacular idea and it would be a good idea to let more time pass. Also of concern is suggesting blocking a user without waiting to see if he responds to warnings. [14]BigDT 16:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral per BigDT & FloNight. Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 18:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral. Sorry, you're a great contributor, but you don't use edit summaries often enough. Roy A.A. 01:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral. Needs more experience to be an admin. -Will Beback 19:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral from above. (ESkog)(Talk) 17:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Delete strivercruft. Kotepho 22:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What's strivercruft? -- nae'blis (talk) 04:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    See the 4th question (not question 4). The gist of it is: user creates lots of stubby stubs, JD afds a bunch of them. Some were keeps, some were obvious deletes, some were inbetween but there was plenty of ABF and uncivility to go around from what I recall. Kotepho 05:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral I changed my vote to neutral because I don't see this as a clique rfa after all, apologies to Jersey Devil and everyone involved for the inaccurate assumptions I made. I also respect the way s/he did not try to alter my vote the way others did. As I haven't seen enough to vote either support or oppose I am voting neutral. Shannonduck talk 02:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    After having read Jersey Devil's response to the rouge admin question I am considering changing my vote back to oppose. It is now neutral - leaning toward oppose. Shannonduck talk 12:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral: Looks like a great user at first, but he's not ready for the admin job yet. It's all in the edit summary usage and his confrontation with InShanee. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 15:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

All user's edits.Voice-of-All 00:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

Viewing contribution data for user Jersey Devil (over the 4336 edit(s) shown on this page) (FAQ)
Time range: 410 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 0hr (UTC) -- 22, Jul, 2006 || Oldest edit on: 4hr (UTC) -- 7, May, 2005
Overall edit summary use (last 1000 edits): Major edits: 46.41% Minor edits: 4.41%
Average edits per day: 16.99 (for last 500 edit(s))
Article edit summary use (last 469 edits): Major article edits: 78.97% Minor article edits: 5.06%
Analysis of edits (out of all 4336 edits shown on this page and last 47 image uploads):
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/major rewrites/sourcing): 0.48% (21)
Significant article edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 2.93% (127)
Superficial article edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 18.8% (815)
Superficial article edits marked as minor: 7.11%
Unique image uploads (non-deleted/updates): 45 (checks last 5000)
Breakdown of all edits:
Unique pages edited: 1563 | Average edits per page: 2.77 | Edits on top: 5.54%
Edits marked as major (non-minor/reverts): 19.07% (827 edit(s))
Edits marked as minor (non-reverts): 1.31% (57 edit(s))
Marked reverts (reversions/text removal): 9.96% (432 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 55.65% (2413 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 41.74% (1810) | Article talk: 10.36% (449)
User: 5.9% (256) | User talk: 13.12% (569)
Wikipedia: 22.95% (995) | Wikipedia talk: 1.38% (60)
Image: 1.08% (47)
Template: 1.29% (56)
Category: 0.02% (1)
Portal: 1.59% (69)
Help: 0% (0)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.55% (24)
Username	Jersey Devil
Total edits	4324
Distinct pages edited	1563
Average edits/page	2.766
First edit	04:44, 7 May 2005
	
(main)	1808
Talk	447
User	238
User talk	565
Image	47
Template	56
Template talk	11
Category	1
Wikipedia	1016
Wikipedia talk	53
Portal	69
Portal talk	13
Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I think that AN/I in particular needs some work and I would likely be very active in it. I find that it takes quite a while to get a reaction from administrators there and in some cases I've posted incidents there without getting a response. I am active in Afds as well and would spend time closing afds. With regards to that let me add that I will never, and I mean never, close an afd related to an article in which any user with whom I've had content disputes in the past have participated in heavily. Also, as someone who is a new page patroller I would check the candidates for speedy deletions category on a regular basis to help stop new page vandalism.--Jersey Devil 10:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I think I can say that I am very proud of my contributions to Portal:Peru and Wikipedia:WikiProject Peru. With regards to the Peru Portal, I have essentially run it since the beginning of 2006. Since February I have been adding monthly Peruvian-related biographies, articles, and pictures to the portal page along with Peruvian-related news updates. Since I joined the project, the number of participants have doubled. I think that part of the jump in recruitment is that 1) I actively recruit new members to the project and 2) I keep the portal active which gives users the feeling that joining the project would not be a waste of time. In comparison to Wikiprojects of other Latin American Countries we are much more active then most with a possible exception for the Argentina project.
With regard to particular articles of which I have contributed and think have helped the project I think Ollanta Humala is a good example of that. This is the page from the first edit I made to the last edit, albeit that there were other edits in between but most of the content added there was from my contributions. A few other articles that I'd throw in as good contributions from myself would be the Ricardo Alarcón de Quesada article where I added much of the content and sources [15], the TeleSUR article [16] [17], cleaned up the Pacifica Radio article [18], added relevant sourced content to the Cory Booker page [19] [20] [21], along with other articles. Also have translated Armando Villanueva, Jorge Del Castillo, and some of the Congress of Peru articles from Spanish Wikipedia. I made the Presidents of Peru template and the Political Parties of Peru template.
I have also uploaded over 40 images for use in the project. Many of these images are of magazine/newspaper covers. I was surprised to find such well-known publications as Le Monde diplomatique, Harvard International Review, El Pais, etc... without images of their covers so I took the initative and uploaded them complete with sources and tags. The following are a selected few which I think help the project, see my log for image uploads:
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I was involved with one dispute with another user whom I will not name in order to try and avoid this from being in anyway interpreted as a personal attack. Initially I did not handle it as well as I could have but I do not believe I was in the wrong side of the dispute. Ultimately it was good because it made me understand the importance of contacting neutral third parties (i.e., an uninvolved administrator) and reporting incidents to AN/I. If there are any specific questions on this dispute, just feel free to ask.--Jersey Devil 10:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have a few questions if thats ok? How long ago was the dispute? What was it over? Was the situation resolved and how was it resolved? It would be nice to see the dispute but if you don't weant to reveal it thats fine, however a good indepth account of what happened (no names or links) would be helpful. :D --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 10:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A: Certainly, this is the user to whom I am referring to. I would say that the largest part of the dispute itself is over but that occasionally I do see the user's edits and take action when I think they are hurtful to the goals of our project. Obviously, my opinion is biased in this, so you may wish to contact administrators who have dealt with the user such as User:MONGO, User:Tom harrison, User:Pablo-flores, and a few others who's handles I can not recall at the moment. From my perspective, I viewed the user as trying to use Wikipedia to fit his viewpoint and breaking with regular Wikipedia process in order to do so. The user is self-admittedly a member of the "9/11 truth movement" which believes that the 9/11 attacks were committed by the government. In the past, he used sources which I felt were unreliable such as articles from websites of Alex Jones on 9/11 articles. At one point he launched a Requests for Comment on me of which, I think it is fair to say, the consenus was that it was used as an attack. Some time ago, before I ever contacted the user there was an RFC on his conduct. Ultimately my view is biased however so I think you should check out those RFCs, both our talk pages, and that user's recent contributions to make your own judgment.--Jersey Devil 10:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 11:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Question from Draicone)

4.If your RfA is successful, how will you begin your contributions to Wikipedia with your admin tools in mind? --Draicone (talk)
A: As I stated in question 1, I really think that AN/I needs more attention. I would likely put AN/I on my watchlist for new edits and try and respond quickly to problems with fellow Wikipedians. Soon after that, as I get more accustom to the admin tools I'd start closing afds.--Jersey Devil 10:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for answering. --Draicone (talk)

(Question from Ine)

5.Could you explain that (Inshaneee's comment on the oppose section)? 1ne 20:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: User:InShaneee is referring to a internal spamming incident that occurred recently and which I reported to AN/I. User:Zereshk had gone around spamming talk pages to try and save this afd. [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36][37] [38] [39] [40] Later on an editor from Persian/Farsi Wikipedia, named Fut.Perf., came on the afd and showed us that the user had been asking for keep votes there for the afd. [41] As a matter of fact the exact text of it was "Please vote and save the following article from deletion". [42] I have to say that this same user has a long history of serious uncivility and breaking with process to make articles fit his point of view without ever being blocked for it. [43] In the past he has used anti-semetic terms towards other users (I do not have diffs since the page has since been deleted as an attack page but please see this MFD) and never has been reprimanded or apologized to the attacked user for his conduct. As I stated, correctly in the context of past actions, the user would brush off the "warning" as a slap on the wrist and continue doing what he was doing. As a matter of fact, he acknowledge this fact stating Dont worry Seyyed. I'll email you next time. Inshanee's just trying to give me a hard time. [44] All this while the users who he spammed to get votes are putting up vandalism tags on Inshaneee's talk page for the simple fact that he is removing the distributed spam per regular process. [45] And, as User:Future Perfect at Sunrise correctly stated his behaviour is being rewarded: there are in fact around a dozen new keep votes on that AfD by now, almost all from Iranian users. It's exactly this sort of behaviour that has made pages like Misconceptions about the Shi'a (even worse piece of POV writing) survive up to three successive AfD's, apparently. [46] Considering all of this, yes I would have immediately given a temporary block to the user (something which InShaneee eventually ended up doing himself). [47] As for future reference, I will say that if a user has a history of this kind of disrespect for process and incivility and takes these kinds of actions I will immediately given them temporary blocks. But please note that I am talking about users with history, I understand that newcomers should not be bitten and I will not just give out blocks for minor incidents, but in this particular case the history was there to justify it.--Jersey Devil 04:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Internal spamming is not listed on any wp "policy". It is a "guideline". You should learn what true policies are before becoming an Admin.--Zereshk 01:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: In my above edit, I never once said it was a policy (the word "policy" was not even stated). Second, in response to your statement in the oppose section where you say that I have a history of editorial wars in the Islam related articles I would like to know which articles these are because as anyone who views my contributions would know I rarely post in Islam related articles let alone have "edit wars" in them. Most of my contributions are to Peruvian, New Jersey, and Politcial Media/Radio/Magazine related articles.--Jersey Devil 02:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You did in fact use the word "policy" in regard to this matter: [48]. And as for the Islamic articles, your battles against Islamic editors such as User:Striver alone speak for themselves.--Zereshk 02:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, spamming is considered bad form, especially for votes in Afd's and on Rfa...which is something you should consider before you engage in another spamming campaign anywhere on wikipedia. Had I seen your spamming campaign mentioned by Jersey Devil on AN/I, you would have been blocked.--MONGO 12:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Lar:

6.(one big long question about categories of admins and your thoughts about them) Are you aware of the notion of adminstrators saying they're willing to be voluntarily recalled or reviewed, by a less onerous process than a new RfA (or worse) arbComm action? What do you think of the idea? Would you consider placing yourself (placement should only be done by oneself) in such a category if you were made an admin? Why or why not? Are you aware of the notion of Rouge admins? What do you think of the notion? Do you see it as purely humorous or do you see what it's driving at? Would you consider allowing yourself to by placed in this category (placement is traditionally done by someone else) if you were made an admin? Why or why not? (note: both these categories have some controversy attached to them, for different reasons, and note also, although I am a policy and process wonk I am in both categories, and finally, note that there is no wrong answer here...) ++Lar: t/c 22:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A: I think it is generally good that Administrators put themselves up for review in Category:Administrators open to recall and would voluntarily add myself to that category if I am made an administrator. The fears by some in the Wikipedia community (particularly admins) of a recall process is that it could be used as an attack on a user. But, I think that is something that we will just have to put up with. At the end of the day we have to put faith in that the Wikipedia community would notice an "attack recall" when they see it and would respond accordingly. While currently it is voluntary, I think there should be some serious thought about making this process mandatory.
I think that the process for reviewing administrators as it is, is in need of reform. Whilst most of the administrators that I have met on Wikipedia are good, thoughtful people worthy of adminship I have met a small minority who I think are in serious need of review. In one recent instance, with an administrator whom again I shall not name in order to avoid this from being interpreted as a personal attack (I will give you specific info if you ask for it), I witnessed a administrator give a self-admitted sockpuppet a barnstar for, according to the aforementioned administrator, "exposing the hypocracy of other administrators" (the sockpuppet had assumed the role of an "obnoxious right-winger" who "accepted the government theory of 9/11" and the administrator shared the view that 9/11 was conducted by the government). This, in my eyes, shows that something has gone wrong. It shows a willingness to accept sockpuppetry, by an administrator who is suppose to be held to higher standards. And a process for having this particular user reprimanded for this would be needlessly tedious. Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship states four methods for de-adminship:
Not a solution in a case like the above one.
  • Some admins have added their names to Category:Administrators open to recall, such that if a certain quantity of users ask for them to resign, the administrator may choose to do so voluntarily.
Administrator must voluntarily agree, thus not a solution to the above case.
It is, in my opinion, needlessly tedious to go through an entire dispute resolution process in order to get de-adminship from an administrator when a one-step recall process would be much more simple and effective.
According to the rules for taking this step: This section is only for discussions specifically related to the use of sysop rights by Wikipedia:Administrators. This includes the actions of protecting or unprotecting pages, deleting or undeleting pages, and blocking or unblocking users. [49] Thus, a case as I stated above would not apply to this process and could only really be turned into a general conduct RFC which though providing community consensus on the conduct would likely not yield any real enforcement.
So, I will state again, a one-step recall process would be a much easier solution then these already established and needless tedious processes and I think there should be serious consideration of it being made mandatory.--Jersey Devil 04:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the second part of the question I think I understand clearly the concept of a "Rouge Admin", as a satire on POV pushing users accusing Administrators of supressing their views simply by enforcing Wikipedia policy and thus claiming that a "cabal" exists that is stopping Wikipedia's "true purpose" while these admins are in fact serving Wikipedia's true purposes. This exists because there are users who misunderstand Wikipedia's purpose as being a place where "all point of views must be expressed with the same weight". Thus, being designated a "rouge admin" is in fact a complement on an administrator's willingness to stop those who manipulate Wikipedia to further their views under the claims that they are "serving Wikipedia's true purpose" and I would never object to that.--Jersey Devil 04:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Aminz:

I would be thankful if you could answer my questions:

1. If someone reports this [50] to you, how would you handle it?

2. Please let me know if one can use the following sources in wikipedia:

2.1 “faithfreedom” directed by Ali Sina

2.2 “answering Christianity” website

2.3 “answering Islam” website

2.4 Books of Karen Armstrong

2.5 Website of BBC

2.6. Website of Islamonline.net

2.7. Website of Dhimmi Watch

3. Part I) If you block a user, how would you provide the communication ways between him and you. Part II) What and when would you block a user? Part III) [Optional] If you observe an admin who doesn’t explain a user as to why he is blocked and doesn’t communicate with the user, what would be your reaction?

Thanks so much in advance. --Aminz 05:40, 26 July 2006 (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/Jersey_Devil&oldid=1143395356"