Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The JPS

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

The JPS

edit

Final (95/2/2) ended 22:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The JPS (talk · contribs) – The JPS is a long standing user since 28 December 2004 who has amassed somewhere over 10,000 edits. He has made substantial contributions of areas of television and Newcastle upon Tyne and has always acted with civility and responsibility. I know it's a terrible cliché but I really did think he was an administrator already and it came as a bit of a shock when I saw that he tagged a page to be speedied rather than do it himself. He has plenty of edits in Wikipedia namespace and shows a good understanding of policies. Tim! 10:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:Gratefully accept. The JPS 18:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support as nominator Tim! 22:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support we badly need people on images, I can hit delete all day long and the que still builds on me -- Tawker 22:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. support per tawker Benon 22:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support, my experience with him left a good impression. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 22:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong Support Jaranda wat's sup 22:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support good editor. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 22:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - Per above. Afonso Silva 22:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Moe ε 22:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Experienced, trustworthy editor. RfA Cliche moment, yet again. Xoloz 22:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I just love it when it's this easy to support. This user has earned this through a lot of hard work. Redux 23:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Adminship is NOT a reward for 'work', it is a job given to those who have prooved we can trust them. --Doc ask? 23:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Trust which is earned through good work. How else does anyone "prove" that they can be trusted on Wikipedia if not by doing the work?? And this was rather clear, really... Redux 00:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support looks mature, lots of article edits, no political userboxes, my type of guy/gal --Doc ask? 23:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Naconkantari e|t||c|m 23:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support per nom. DarthVader 23:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. Civil and trustworthy user, just the kind of person we need as admin. Canderson7 (talk) 00:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Cliché support. NSLE (T+C) at 00:57 UTC (2006-04-23)
  16. Support because, when I was misusing fair use, The JPS actually told me when he removed the image from the article. General good user. Esteffect 01:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support, I've had only good experiences, has been long with the project and has some edits ;). feydey 01:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. Good image cleanup work, good edits, good communication, experienced. ×Meegs 01:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support, excellent work all around. Here's your mop, now get to work! :-P --ZsinjTalk 01:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support - Richardcavell 02:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support --Terence Ong 02:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support per above. Seems like an excellent user. --tomf688{talk} 02:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support We can always use another admin who enforces policies and does dirty work himself! Primate#101 02:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support per above and answers, despite the glaring lack of portal talk contributions, tsk tsk. --W.marsh 03:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. Definitely. (^'-')^ Covington 03:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. Don't forget orphaned fair use images though! --Rory096(block) 04:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. I'm sorry I can't support someone unless they have at least one copyvio image in their signature... ok, I guess I'll make an exception this once. Support JoshuaZ 04:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Joe I 05:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support, doubtlessly would help the project. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 06:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 07:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support, per Mailer Diablo. Computerjoe's talk 09:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support, and thanks for the 'education' - Sweetie Petie 10:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support - good editor, sensible person, and this made me laugh. —Whouk (talk) 10:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support - He seems like a good guy all around. He could even mentor somebody, and I would recommend that he does. He also teaches at an institution of higher education which likely means he's a rather refined guy. Also, per above. --Shultz IV 11:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support, has a good understanding of policies and guidelines, per everyone. |→ Spaully°τ 12:58, 23 April 2006 (GMT)
  36. Support A solid user. --Siva1979Talk to me 13:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support a good user, and good answers to standard questions --Deville (Talk) 16:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Cliche Support Kimchi.sg | talk 16:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. -- Michael Warren | Talk 16:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. A few admins tools would help a good editor like this.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 16:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support per above. Royboycrashfan   18:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support per Computerjoe. Blackcap (talk) 18:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. A model wikipedian. --Bucketsofg 18:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  44.   Support per above. J.Steinbock (Talk)
  45. Support per nom, many above, and my own judgment. ~Linuxerist E/L/T 19:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support per above.—G.He 20:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support per nom. Amcfreely 21:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. Good user. --Tone 22:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support— Preceding unsigned comment added by Megan 189 (talk • contribs)
  50. Support Joe I 00:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support - definately overdue. I've been an admin nearly a year and The JPS joined only 2 days after I did. Thryduulf 01:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. Should have been one a long time ago. Nephron  T|C 03:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. After looking through his edit count, his talk page, and his contributions, he seems to be a great editor unlikely to abuse admin powers. --TBC ??? ??? ??? 04:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Under no circumstances would I object to The JPS being made an admin :) Grutness...wha? 05:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Strong support Another outstanding admin candidate. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 05:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support, will make a good admin. JIP | Talk 06:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. Of course. (^'-')^ Covington 06:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support Good editor. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Excellent candidate. Flowerparty☀ 17:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support: Seems a decent enough fellow. -MrFizyx 18:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support as per nom. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support A strong editor who will make a good admin. I was impressed with how he handled the Hamish Ross nonsense. Gwernol 21:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  63. Support -- Very well qualified. John Reid 02:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support -- I know I've run into him and I had a good experience. Just don't ask me when. :) --Woohookitty(meow) 08:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support--Jusjih 14:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support, like his attitude to copyrights. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support --We need help from folks like The JPS to show our good faith effort to eliminate image copyright violations. -Nv8200p talk 15:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This vote came within minutes after the nominee's advertising of his RFA. Bcrats, please discount it. --Ghirla -трёп- 15:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    One may refer to their RfA in passing in the course of normal conversation. This vote was added when the tally was (66/1/2), I doubt there is any campaigning going on here. NoSeptember talk 15:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I was here anyway adding an opinion to the Oppose debate below so I thought I'd add an opinion here too. -Nv8200p talk 23:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support, thought he already was an admin. Stifle (talk) 15:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support. See no reason to believe admin tools will be abused. Jayjg (talk) 17:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support. Jkelly 18:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support a longtime polite and helpful user, and someone who could really use the admin tools to help clean up the image copyright problem. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support - Canderous 19:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support, no reason for me to oppose. Help with images is always needed. Grandmasterka 19:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support looks like he has the potential to be a great admin, plenty of experience └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 20:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support Only If.. the issues in the Oppose section are addressed well to show JPS can handle issues with other users. Otherwise no problem here.--Andeee 06:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Suppose finally someone I can support. A strong contributor of content as others have said.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Profundity06 (talk • contribs)
  77. Support edits look solid.--MONGO 09:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support. See no problem here. Also, it'd be nice to have another admin dealing with copyright problems. Conscious 14:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. It all checks out. Why not make this editor an admin? Support ++Lar: t/c 16:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. 'Strong keep' - asset to Wikipedia. --Celestianpower háblame 18:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC) Errr... Strong support - asset to Wikipedia. --Celestianpower háblame 18:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support. -- MarcoTolo 00:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support: --Bhadani 13:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support per oppose vote #1, and per numerical analysis of his edits. Good distribution by page, month, and namespace. No evidence of article ownership or edit warring, (the two major factors mitigating abuse of admin tools). — Apr. 27, '06 [22:28] <freakofnurxture|talk>
  84. Support no worries here. --Jay(Reply) 02:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support strong user.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 07:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support because he gets oppose votes for doing the right thing in the right way - David Gerard 16:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support he/she is nice and polite and informs people when they're doing something wrong without being hostile Gungadin 20:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support™ --Rory096 21:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support as I have good experience from The JPS. EliasAlucard|Talk 03:50, 29 Apr, 2006 (UTC+1)
  90. Support. My experience with The JPS has been positive. And taking care of copyvios is commendable – sadly, it takes a lot more to deserve the designation "copyright paranoia" these days. Rl 16:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support Going to be a good administrator. FloNight talk 17:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Strong Support An amazing asset to the Wikipedia community Mets501talk 18:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    These votes were added after the RFA ended.
  93. "Probably passed the deadline but need to add very very very strong support" support! Was only thinking last week of asking The JPS why the hell he wasn't an admin. Now he will be. And about bloody time too! I really need to keep RfA under closer watch.... ➨ ≡ЯΞDVΞRS≡ 22:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support. Hope I'm not too late :). --Dragon695 06:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Late support. Missed this one. Definitely helpful editor. Marskell 13:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose. I have some grounds to believe that the guy will abuse his admin powers to delete properly tagged images and to decrease the quality of WP articles. The JPS, please find something more useful to do. Write new articles, for instance. --Ghirla -трёп- 13:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Do you have any examples of this?JoshuaZ 13:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Explanation: This is in retaliation to my listing three of Ghirlandajo's images on PUI. I had noticed his comment here and decided to look at the images myself. I felt that the copyright status was problematic, so I listed them on PUI. Observing his comments that he was not given "prior notification" the first time they were deleted, I ensured that I left the appropriate notification on his talk page. These warnings were promptly removed, accompanied by a rather harsh edit summary. He also left a rather aggressive comment on my talk page. I responded by advising Ghirlandajo to discuss the image on PUI; at the time of writing, he hasn't.
    If I acted inappropriately at any point, then I apologise. However, I'm fairly sure that I have followed policy to the letter.
    Note also that I have promised, in my answers to the questions (below), that I would not delete images which I have tagged myself. The JPS 14:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The JSP, the images are tagged and sourced properly, so what is your problem? I never vote "in retaliation"; your Saturday attack was my only experience of interacting with you, and not a pleasant one, to be sure. IMHO, there are two classes of wikipedians - constructive and destructive. The constructive editors like myself - who wrote some 500 articles for this project - spent the bulk of their time creating new stuff and improving existing articles. Destructive editors like yourself delete the hard work of others without giving it a second thought. The main problem with them is that they don't care about the only aim of this project, that is, to write an encyclopedia. So they spend their energy and employ their tools for persecuting prolific and good-faith editors or wikilayering them. I've seen enough destructive admins and I don't want to have another. Besides, the votes of those who supported ("I can hit delete all day long and the que still builds on me") do not inspire my confidence, too. I'm sure your nomination succeeds without my vote, however. Ghirla -трёп- 08:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The JPS complaints on the images uploaded by Ghirla are technically correct. The image had on outdated tag that Ghirla recently updated and there is still no fair use rationale. I applaud Ghirla for being constructive in writing articles but understanding how destructive uploading improperly tagged and improperly documented copyrighted images can be is equally important. -Nv8200p talk 15:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. OK, I am going to be bold. I oppose because destructive admins can do more harm than good. Like causing contributors to run away so that no new work will be done. What would you be without the working man? User:Pan Gerwazy --pgp 14:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Note to bcrat: User had 86 edits as of about a week ago (enwiki toolserver lag). --Rory096 21:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I always value constructive criticism. It would help me a graet deal if you could provide any examples of where I have been destructive. I don't believe we have come into contact before: but, then, I see you mainly edit articles about Russia, and Ghirla only welcomed you in February. The JPS 14:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Lack of interaction with the community; only about 4% of edits are to user talk. Otherwise, user is great. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 23:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    But 4% in this case represents 434 comments! Also, most do not seem to be pasting templates, but genuine interactions with people. --W.marsh 02:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, its 430/10,000 edits! Whether or not it was real interaction, more is still needed. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 02:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe this shows lack of interaction, you can interact with the community in the WP: namespace. Conscious 14:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Although a good editor, but less than satisfactory user talk edits. --Andy123(talk) 18:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I very much take on board these comments. I will say that I always interact when necessary: I do have experience of dealing with/mediating conflicts, but I guess my low 'user talk' count is indicative of the lack of controversial edits I make. I fully appreciate, though, that as an admin I am expected to interact: as I say, I already do this, when needed -- as an admin, it will be needed more often. Cheers. The JPS 14:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

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 would increase my involvement with untagged image and copyvio issues by helping out with clearing the backlog: admin tools would enable me to delete images in the appropriate categories (such as this one, although that will probably be empty as this RFA nears its end). This would allow more experienced people in those projects time to deal with issues that require more experience! However, I would not use the tools to delete images I have tagged myself (unless advised that this is appropriate). I have many pages on my watchlist which attract vandals, and the block tool would come in particularly useful (see [1] and [2]). At the moment I make use of AIAV (which I could help out with), but the rollback tool would be handy. I went through a phase of RC patrol, even using CrytoDerk's Vandal Fighter, but that became pretty tedious without rollback: with rollback, I can return.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: The most pleasure is when an article of mine is edited soon by another. I was particularly pleased when someone left this edit summary on my new article about Nationwide (TV series). Joe Fagin was practically rewritten (because of my poor writing), but at least it meant that someone else cared about it: Wikipedia was slightly more comprehensive because of me.
The most satisfaction is when consensus can be reached politely on talk pages, or when all participants leave a particular conversation happy.
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: The most controversial recent example is the whole Fred Moss/Hamish Ross debacle. I didn't feel particularly stressed, however, since I was collaborating with several others, including admins. The anon IP reported me to WP:ANB, but that was quickly resolved. When I was being impersonated, I decided not to feed the troll by responding myself. As comments were becoming personal against me, I threw a damp towel on the flame by withdrawing from the discussion.
My involvement with the untagged image project and related issues has meant that I get my fair share of insults. They don't create stress, tho': how can I take them personally when I don't know them personally!? I have enjoyed talking with Sweetie Petie, Shakirfan and Gungadin recently: although I had tagged many of their images for deletion I feel I have 'educated' them (for want of a perhaps less pretentious phrase) in our standards surrounding copyvio/fair use.
There have been, of course, other conflicts, but I always try to make sure that other people are involved to monitor/cover me. Other than fighting vandalism, I feel safe saying that I have created no conflict.
I have made mistakes, but I rarely make the same mistake twice (unless its a typo).
4. What kind of policy are you going to have about cracking down on vandalism? Your focus has mostly been on adding content as an administrator. Invariably, you will find yourself embroiled in the less savory aspects of Wikipedia such as dealing with vandals and others. Will you be pro-active or reactive?
A: (Sorry for the delay in answering -- this question sneeked up on me, and the nature meant that I spent some time considering the issues before publishing.)
Well, as Jimmy says, dealing with vandalism is mainly going to be reactionary. However, it would be nice to reform vandals into becoming legitimate contributors. A pro-active stance would be correct use of the {{test}} tags (a friendly warning as the first step, for example). This might be reacting to vandalism, of course, but hopefully convincing the vandal to either edit properly or to go away. I sense that this question has philosophical undertones and I think it warrants greater consideration... an introductory Google search reveals some interesting discussions. It's in my nature to develop my understanding of these debates...
It is important, though, to be pro-active by being polite to vandals. If we are too rude to them, they will try to seek revenge by vandalising more persistently. The JPS 14:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above 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/The_JPS&oldid=1085554434"