Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JzG

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

JzG

[edit]

Final (102/1/1) ended 02:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

JzG (talk · contribs) – This user, known to many by his former name of Just zis Guy, you know? (talk · contribs) has been insightful and helpful on many AfD discussions. He has demonstrated maturity and level-headedness, he has shown an ability to change and debate intelligently without personal attacks. He has made contributions both as an editor and as a writer, I feel he would be a welcome addition to the sysop team. (Please note this is my first nomination for Request for adminship, if any policy or proceedure hasn't been exactly followed it by my fault alone.) Ifnord 17:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I have expressed my reservations about my suitability for adminship, but people keep urging me to stand so in the end I will accept, with thanks to Ifnord, and let the community decide.

I will make the following comment: I am prone to strong opinions. It would be my intention not to use admin powers where I am involved in a dispute, or to close AfDs where I have nominated or voted, or to delete speedy candidates on the more contentious categories ({{nn-bio}}, {{nn-band}} etc.).

A further comment: I stand convicted of not always filling in edit histories. I plead guilty and throw myself on the mercy of the court. I should indeed know better; the fact that half the edits in my watchlist don't have them does not mean I should not use them. Must try harder. I wonder if there is a script which alerts you if you haven't done that?

Woo-hoo! I found one! Magic :-) See those summaries fly.... Also please note, I often make typing errors (due to burn scars on my left hand), so it's not uncommon for me to put a summary in the first or last of a batch of several edits. But I forget more often than I remember so this New! IMPROVED! script will help me ment my non-summarising ways.

Support

  1. He has a good head. Better than I do. Handled the people attacking me on my RfC well. Dominick (TALK) 18:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Very level headed and neutral when voting on AfDs, would make a great admin IMO! Mike 19:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Will look at both sides of an issue.--FloNight 00:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support obviously, as nominator. Ifnord 00:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support without any reservations whatsoever. JzG is a fine candidate for admin.  RasputinAXP  talk contribs 00:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support completely. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Speedy Support 100% --Jaranda wat's sup 00:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. JzG is about the only Wikipedian I can imagine supporting for adminship in these circumstances (admits to strong opinions, assorted conflicts, new account, etc.) That says a lot. --W.marsh 00:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Edit summary usage more often, please, but support. NSLE (T+C) 01:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. Excellent user, well-versed in policies. (ESkog)(Talk) 03:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support, fine candidate. 24.93.170.23 03:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thought I was logged in, maybe not. Above vote by Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me!. 03:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Very Strong Support Just zis Guy, you know? is one of the best contributor, a very calm, friendly person. I believe he will be a very good admin. I trust him and we need him. Many times he helped me by being such a nice person. I'm happy that I can vote for him wholeheartly. Bonaparte talk 07:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. Good and responsible contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. Good judgement and grasp of policy. -- Megamix? 07:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. Good judgement, and a level-headed, fact-backed, and calm contributor to many hot AfD debates. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 09:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. So strong support it isn't even funny any more. I nominated Just zis Guy, you know? for adminship myself but he declined it. Now that he's been nominated again, the least I can do is offer my support. — JIP | Talk 11:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Astrotrain 11:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. KHM03 12:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support I met Guy during a conflict whose outcome I did not quite agree with at the time, but it gave me an opportunity to watch him work under stress. He played by the book, then went the extra mile. I have since seen this was not a fluke. I could say more (including some advice) but I see others have already covered everything I wanted to say. AvB ÷ talk 12:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. Defender of the wiki on Simon Wessely, in which he masterfully ensured WP:NPOV and WP:NOR despite heavy pressure, including having his personal email address plastered on offsite messaging boards and remaining WP:COOL despite all this. Great admin material. Agree about edit summaries, but dispute Oleg's assessment that this should bar one from adminship. JFW | T@lk 13:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. -- Phædriel *whistle* 14:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support; while I do think that edit summaries are important, I do not think that not using them is such a strong reason for opposing. - Liberatore(T) 15:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support - given the promise on edit summaries. --Whouk (talk) 15:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support, thanks/wangi 16:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support like madness! Particular fine user.SoothingR 17:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Just zis Support, you know? - very good contributor -- Francs2000 18:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose, way too new (kidding) Support, I've seen JzGyk? around and he's shown good judgement overall. His willingness to fix his edit summary weakness and, of course, his answers to my optional questions are enough for me to lend him my support. --Deathphoenix 18:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. Does excellent work on AfD and should be given the power to delete. Would also make good use of the other buttons on the mop. Youngamerican 18:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. He'll be a fine admin. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 18:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 20:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support --Mihai -talk 20:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. Without any reservations at all -- Shinmawa 21:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Changed vote from neutral, see below. ~MDD4696 22:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support, we need people Just like zis Guy, you know? Sceptre (Talk) 22:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support - Bobet 23:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support - William M. Connolley 23:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  37. Support. Ral315 (talk) 01:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Good editor --rogerd 01:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support I've seen him around on AFD and he seems eminently sensible. --kingboyk 01:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. I hang around on AfD a fair bit, and I regularly see him there. He certainly has a good grasp of the deletion policy, and makes insightful comments. No problems, Werdna648T/C\@ 03:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support . F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 04:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support, as I think he has shown good judgment, and is taking steps to fix his edit summary ratio. That said, ditch the RFA link on your signature - many users dislike them and you don't want to get oppose votes for that reason. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 04:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support change neutral to support. I think JzG will make a good admin. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 04:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. Good work on AFD. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 05:22Z
  45. Support, I didn't know he wasn't a sysop. --Terence Ong Talk 12:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Two Thumbs Up - Level-headed, reasonable, has a great attitude towards the deletion process. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 13:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Just support, you know. BD2412 T 14:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Weak support. Weak because I don't know him that well, but he does seem good. gren グレン ? 16:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. King of All the Franks 16:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. Silensor 19:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support see no reason to oppose, (pssst:edit summaries)!--MONGO 20:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. Will make good use of tools. Jayjg (talk) 21:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support per above.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Briangotts (talk • contribs)
  54. Support have seen JzG about in former incarnation, and now with the force summary, that's history. --Alf melmac 22:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Very Strong Support Consistent, solid editor, would make an excellent admin. Eusebeus 23:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support, should make a fine administrator. Hall Monitor 23:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. What else is there to say? - brenneman(t)(c) 23:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support --NaconKantari 01:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. EXTREME Support WhiteNight T | @ | C 05:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. My only concern was edit summaries, but that's been dealt with. Would make a great admin. — TheKMantalk 05:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Strong support. Guy is a very nice person with a lot of good faith, and I think he will make a great admin! Ronline ✉ 11:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support. the wub "?!" RFR - a good idea? 11:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support. Appears competent and neutral. --El Cazangero 13:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support. His well-done defusing of an afd/revert-war situation that arose yesterday impressed me quite a bit. That's one of the most important features an admin should have, calm sensibility and the ability to encourage other wikipedians to do the same. -- That Guy, From That Show! 13:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support. All the edits of his that I have seen have been fantastic (I often run across them on RC patrol). I honestly thought he was an admin, as his attitude towards Wikipedia seems to be great, and having a sense of humour is always good. — Zazou 18:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 19:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support Level headed, good answers below - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» T | C 19:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Strong support. Clever chap and not afraid to stand his ground. He'll be an excellent admin. PJM 19:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support We likes him, precious. --Fang Aili 20:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support A good user. We have had a good exchange of ideas on the discussion of inclusion/exclusion of legislative candidates. He has strong opinions that I don't always agree with, but I feel confident he will not abuse admin tools. TMS63112 22:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 22:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Extreme vanispamcruftisement support. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 03:48, Jan. 13, 2006
  73. Support. All experiences have been positive. Just work on those edit summaries. :o) EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 04:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support. Seems to be OK, although I kind of sceptical towards admins who don't write articles: they tend to interfere with those who actually write this encyclopedia. --Ghirla | talk 09:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Suppport Seems fine, especially now that the user seems to have rectified the edit summary usage problem. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 09:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support sounds good to me, gets my support. Gryffindor 14:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Suport. Bahn Mi 19:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support. Durova 21:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Supportno reservations except a slight lack of edit summaries. Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 01:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support see notes under Neutral below. xaosflux Talk/CVU 17:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support sense of humour is important. Dlyons493 Talk 20:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support. -- DS1953 talk 22:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Strong support - one wise editor who, in my opinion, most certainly deserves adminship. CLW 22:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support for good answers, and for being so prolific/helpful on AfD. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 23:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support per CyclePat. Ashibaka tock 04:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support without reservations. -Rebelguys2 04:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support due to all reasons stated above. Mo0[talk] 04:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Super-duper industrial-strength support. You know, in the future, you have to let me know when you change your account and go out for an RfA ;) --bbatsell | « give me a ring »
  89. Support DaGizzaChat (c) 12:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support --Angr (tɔk) 13:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support A fine editor in my experience. Marskell 17:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  92. 'Strong Support --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 17:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support (but only if someone tells me the link to the "force edit summary" gadget, because this is a fault of mine too)... I've interacted with Zis Guy before and been impressed. That he had to be convinced to stand for admin speaks volumes to me, we need more admins like that and less who see it as a badge/status/power trip... IMHO anyway. ++Lar: t/c 19:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC) PS: kidding about the link being NECESSARY to support![reply]
    A code fairy came by and left the code on my talk page but neglected to sign their name! Shocking! They may need to look into a "don't let me post to talk pages without signing my post" gadget at some point if this continues! ++Lar: t/c 22:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support, Very honest. A admirible quality. -ZeroTalk 20:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support - ZOMG! Can't believe I didn't see this! Rock on, JzG! FCYTravis 22:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support. Robert 05:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support. Thoughtful user with good judgment and common sense. We need admins like that. -R. fiend 06:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  98. What? You're not an admin? This has to be a cruel joke. A really really cruel joke. Johnleemk | Talk 14:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support. I've seen JZG around a fair bit, and he seems to conduct himself honourably at all times. He's just zis guy, you know? ElectricRay 14:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support, obviously. And welcome to Wikipedia:Times that 100 Wikipedians actually agreed and voted to support something. --Interiot 22:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support Izehar 22:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support User:CyclePat

Oppose

Changed to Neutral per JzG's statement on my talk page that he added the "force edit summary" script to his monobook.js, which I take as a promise to be much more careful about the issue in the future. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  1. Oppose--Masssiveego 02:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Note to closing 'crat - seems Masssiveego is the new Boothy. BD2412 T 03:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 'Oppose(see bellow changed January 16 to support);: Right now I feel JzG, labeled the Foul mouthed Internet Antagonist, is not ready. Though we have some good times we have also been involved in some heated disputed that are still unresolved (probably due to lack of wiki process know how). Anyway, you have stated on several occasions that; YOU ARE NOT READY FOR ADMINSHIP: possible outburst, Lacking knowledge of procedure, etc. The most important question then being; What has made you suddenly change your mind? I have worked hard the last few days to analyse JzG's REAL history. I personally feel that he is a sneaky, unknowledgeable (on wikiprocess) and a ticking time bomb waiting for someone to do the bad thing, that way he can snap at him. I have a series of questions and many concerns that can be found at User:CyclePat\building a case for RFC. (For the dignity of JzG and the clarity of this vote I have not added them here) I ask that everyone please acknowledge this page by leaving your signature on that talk page. (I may still feel obliged to post it here!) --CyclePat 03:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of those reasons are not a reason to oppose, just because he said he was not ready for adminship one month ago doesn't mean you have to oppose. Another link looks like possible trolling by a other user, and another link was a comment made by Splash, not JzG and I still don't see nothing wrong with it. Thanks --Jaranda wat's sup 05:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Acually I noticed that CyclePat was a revenge vote, and was close to filing a revenge RFC at JzG to do some pay back after he got involved in conflect with him. I felt JzG is handling this conflect very good, while Cyclepath looks like he is in the way to a RFC. Thanls --Jaranda wat's sup 05:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anyone who is unaware of the background to the One Click group's vendetta can find out much more at Talk:Simon Wessely, or by asking JFW. They are right that when dealing with Mike Vandeman, who is an anti mountain biking bigot and serial usenet troll who posts gleeful death reports of mountian bikers on rec.bicycles.misc, I have been known to use invective, although I am much more likely to demolish his idiocy with evidence.
The One Click group are a radical group of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome sufferers who posted a defamatory update to the Simon Wessely article, and then accused me of being a "Wessely hagiographer" for removing text like Professor Wessely should be granted a dictionary of his own, so far has he stretched the meaning of the English language while attempting to explain that ME although a ‘real’ illness, is often first imagined. He has trodden the tightrope of confusing semantics with the balance of Blondel and the focus of a train spotter. Does anyone here think that should be allowed to stand? All I did in the first instance was to try to restate their facts in neutral terms, and only later did I find out that many of their "facts" were not facts at all. This dispute got very heated (especially after they started publishing my personal details on their website and spamming me) and that is one of the reasons I express reservations above regarding my detachment, and why I have said that I am unlikely to use admin powers in a dispute in which Iam personally involved, but it must be remembered that this was routine anti-vandalism work against some extremely biased POV pushers.
I have been thanked by Jimbo for the work I did on that article, so maybe it was not all bad.
If anyone thinks it's a deep dark secret that I have strong opinions, they clearly have not read my statement above too closely, where they will also see the answer to Pat's question: what mde me change my mind. The answer is, if enough Wikipedians tell me something in good faith, in the end I believe them - in this case that other admins also have these issues and work around them, and admins are not expected to be plaster saints, and the admin tools will help me do what I already do for the 'pedia in a more efficient way.
As to CyclePat, I have acknowledged that I have trouble with him (and I am not alone in this). I've suggested to him more than once that if he has issues with my interpretation of the rules he should raise an RfC. I am always happy to defend my actions, and when I've been wrong in the past I've generally tried to admit is and learn from the experience. He has not raised an RfC, but has gone to RfM Requests for mediation#Motorized bicycle, Pedelec, Electric Bicycle, Moped, Motorcycle, Timeline of motorized bicycle history. Feel free to review what Pat has to say there and at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Pedelec and elsewhere and judge it, and me on merit. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 14:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you not feel that your having more experience on wikipedia with all the article that you have deleted and possibly on RFC's, (general requests for comments), and the fact that I repeatedly asked you to bring this up for RFC, represents a lack of ability on your behalf? You have (or it has) even (been) suggested that you lack the ability of wiki process. You even seemed to agree to this. Before continuing further, I would like to thank you for clarifying this one click group. Am I right to assume that you have jumped and concentrated most of your efforts on what you consider POV issues? (ie.: you went from that case, to motorized bicycle) I was hoping to get your scope on the situation and you seem to have explained that pretty fairly. I did notice your previous comments about being able to lose your temper and how you would deal with it. However, I was hoping to get your personal answer and not the voting statistic on why others nominated you!. More specifically, I think you have avoided the main important question. Why is it, that not less than one month ago you said you weren't ready for adminship and suddenly now you are, seemingly, accepting this nomination to become adminship? Or how about worded like this; What makes you more ready today compared to about 20 days ago, when you indicated you were not? --CyclePat 18:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See answers below. If you want an RfC raised you know how to do it. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 21:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken the time to look at your answer to my questions. As you know I am quite please to see you answered them! I however feel you may have avoid some of them (the sources where all indicated on my page). But that isn't as important for I am pleased to see your honorable conduct. Though we have had our differences, and still do, I could see no better, honorable, man, though sometime vulgarly articulated, to take the role of admin. I have faith that you will be able to remain level headed. And remember, when you are passionate about a subject, like we have been about motorized bicycle, having honorable actions is greatly appreciated. Another reason I am changin my vote from Naie to YAE is because I have seen your most recent conduct improvements when dealing with conflict. (It's hard to notice when I have my head stuck in motorized bicycle all the time)(Now if only we could come to terms with our darn edit war... which of course we have honorably agreed to have a cease fire!!!). Again, I couldn't possibly imagine a better ADMINISTRATOR. I rectract my OPPOSE... you have past the TEST based on honour, (honesty, which someone commented about) and your recent level headedness. I also imagine one day, when I feel like runing for admin. you will be as apt and free to ask me any similar questions. :) p.s.:(In the back of my mind though I've been wondering... how do we evaluate and monitor what the views of our admin's are. Like the supreme court of canada, Government elects a new judge. Often it is someone that they may favor and in some interesting political ways!!! Have conservatives, liberals, etc... (like the senate) I question how many deletionist administrators we have and how many anti-deletionists administrator we have elected!!!) No mater the case... 'SUPPORT --CyclePat 22:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Neutral. Lack of edit summaries kills it for me, good edit summaries often save much valuable time for people on RC patrol. xaosflux Talk/CVU 03:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As the new script is working, and contributions show mass improvement on edit summaries, I've changed to SUPPORT. xaosflux Talk/CVU 17:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral My interactions with and observations of this user have been positive, but I agree with the above comments regarding edit summaries. It's a simple habit to start. ~MDD4696 05:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changing vote to support, since he has added the "force summary" script to his monobook.js. ~MDD4696 22:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral' Edit summaries too... :/ gren グレン ? 14:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I want to very much support JzG and I agree with some of his opinions too, but the edit summaries are not enough and most of Jzg's edits are to the project namespace. So I would like to see more work on the article space. I might support if I see improvement. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 15:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral, see comment at Oppose above. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia even more. 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. Vandal watching and intervention, Category:NPOV disputes, Category:Requested moves, articles for creation, general janitorial stuff. I have tried to do at least some of this to the best of my abilities with ordinary user powers.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I am happy with the work I did on recumbent bicycle, bicycle helmet, bicycle lighting, risk compensation and case-control, all controversial subjects on which I have some specialist knowledge and (in some cases) a stack of research papers. And triple metre, one of the better results of an AfD battle.
In the less controversial areas I'm pleased with some minor additions I made to Robert Hooke, from a rare book I have in my possession which is regarded as one of the authoritative sources on Hooke, also some merges of minor individual songs to album and band articles, various edits in and around the subject of classical organ and horn builders, players and composers. I created WP:TIGERS, which I try to follow, also, WP:BALLS has been used occasionally as has WP:VSCA - let's keep our sense of perspective here :-D
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. Hell yes! Three ongoing now, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WebEx and Min Zhu, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dominick and anything to do with User:CyclePat. Past disputes include Simon Wessely.
Truth is, I can't say I'm especially proud of how I've handled any of the various disputes - hence my reservations over adminship. Simon Wessely was especially bruising since the group pushing the problem POV used their website to publish personal information about me and to attack me personally in a very hurtful and offensive manner - but I don't want to rake over the coals of that one. However, it did earn me personal congratulations from Jimbo, so I guess I came out of it better than I rated myself. I picked up a couple of barnstars on the way around, and handed a few out too.
It's situations like this which make me appreciate the cleft stick that other admins like Mikka find themselves in: the moment you weigh in, one side views you as partisan. If you do a good and neutral job, both sides will think you are partisan - and that's the best that can happen!
4. What do you think of these questions?
A. Fair and BalancedTM :-)

The following are some optional questions. There are no correct answers to these questions and I simply want to know your opinions rather than see a correct answer. Thanks! --Deathphoenix 04:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5. When would you use {{test1}}, and when would you use {{bv}}?
A. test1 would be the default for "first offences", whereas bv would be for accounts (new or static IP) which are making clearly malicious (i.e. not simply mischievous) changes. I guess that the times I've gone to "vandalism in progress" are the times I'd be most likely to use bv - althoguh even then the call would probably depend on the subject article, since there is a long tradition of clusless newbies pitching into controversial topics.
6. What would you do if a user reverts an article four times in slightly more than 24 hours? (Thus obeying the letter of WP:3RR.)
A. Find out why, and warnt hem not to do it again. 3RR is firm, but if people think they are going to game the system they are going to have to modify their opinion. Consensus via the talk page is the way ahead. Also, I'd be more likely to take a stronger view with established editors, since they should know better. But I don't pretend I have a ready answer and I'd probably ask other admins at least to start with.
7. In your opinion, when would you speedy delete an article under CSD A7 (unremarkable people or groups) and when would you nominate it for an AFD instead?
A. I've already said that I would use contentious tags with care, because my vanity tolerance threshold is below that of some others. I guess I might be tempted to delete an article if it is absolutely clear there is no possibility of notability (three kids who hang around after school, say), but I would be as likely to leave well alone or take it to AfD. I trust the AfD process and I don't often speedy tag articles. Of those I've speedy tagged, I don't recall any being kept or deletion reviewed, but I could easily be wrong.
8. How would you tell the difference between a sockpuppet and a new user?
A. I'm very reluctant to fling accusations of sopckpuppetry, meatpuppets are more common in my experience (calls on web forums to pile in to AfD votes). But if a new account starts making the same chcracteristic edits as an established or blocked account, and the IPs are similar, the radar might light up. I can't say I've ever called sockpuppet, though. It's a serious allegation and needs solid evidence, obviuous cases like Willy notwithstanding.
9. How would you use WP:NPOV when writing or editing a disputed article?
A. I'd like to be able to get to the deleted history of Simon Wessely when answering this. At one point I took a heavily POV screed and neutralised the language, then started workign on verifying the factual data. Another one I'm in the middle of right now, WebEx and Min Zhu; there is evidence of strong opinions on the part of one editor, and dogged persistence and tracking back to reliable sources is the only way to go. Disputed text comes out of the article and into a subpage or the talk page, I don't think we can leave defamatory content live while we debate it, but when I do this I always (or at least I think always) put "removing disputed text, see talk" or some such in the edit history. Folks up there are right, I don't always fill in edit histories - my bad, I guess, but a lot of stuff on my watchlist doesn't seem to get text in the edit history, so I guess I never noticed that some peopel think it's important. Obvious when you think about it, but there you go.
Anyway, I digress. The answer is I would probably revert any obviously POV addition, go back to the sources and incrementally wind back in (in neutral terms) that which can be verified, but it will depend on the article in question and how much I know about the subject.

Questions asked by User:CyclePat at User:CyclePat\building a case for RFC, to which he alludes above.

10. you have indicated that you are not ready to be an admin yet, what has made you change your mind?
See above. Several Wikiepdians whose judgment I trust have urged me to accept nominations so in the end I did, with reservations as expressed. It will give me more tools to do what I already do (e.g. newpage patrol); I am also reassured that I am not required to achieve sainthood first and that there are checks and balances in place.
11. you have indicated that you don't know the process and you are not comftable with them right now. You even asked if you are supposed to know all this. How will you coop with your lack of knowlege in various wikipedia operational procedure and what will you do to make them better?
I have said I do not know everything about every process. When I don't know something I ask people, I also often ask for second opinions before taking action and will continue to do so. If asking for help when you need it is a sign of a bad administrator then yes that would make me a bad candidate.
12. You have demonstrated in your past some good assumptions, but you have also had many bad assumptions. You put words in peoples mouth and you fail to suply your sources for these "accusations." How will you deal with hear say in the future?
By whose judgment of good? For what values of "accusation"? Cite specifics with diffs please. As to how I deal with hearsay, you can see that right now at Talk:WebEx and Talk:Min Zhu.
13. You seem to be looking for arguments (you've even been cited on external sources such as a news blog). Seemingly you get easily frustrated, use foul language and are considered an internet antagonist. How will manage your anger and antagonissing attitude?
This applies to one specific case discussed in detail above. The One Click group inserted defamatory text which I worked long and hard to neutralise against extreme provocation and bitter personal attacks, including by email, from the very outset. The article's subject contacted the helpdesk and in the end Jimbo stepped in and locked the page at a stub until a new version was worked up. Jimbo's judgment appears to be that I did OK (actually I think his exact words were "you rock") but you apparently disagree, that is of course your prerogative. Can you find anywhere where I have stated that my actions in that dispute were exemplary? As with most poeple, I have a limited tolerance for baseless personal attacks made in the public domain.
As to "looking for an argument" - no. I am a long-time Usenet user, the archive has some tens of thousands of my posts under successive addresses. I am well-informed on a couple of very contentious issues (e.g. bicycle helmets and cycle paths). That means I get involved in some flamewars. I have found out that, to paraphrase Lor Hailsham, the best way to win an argument is to be right in the first place, so I have accumulated a substantial collection of research documents. I have also found that the best response to being wrong is to find out more and then reassess (the most notable example also being cycle helmets). There are, out there, a number of people whose cherished beliefs conflict with the evidence I have accumulated. This is apparent in the edit history of Bicycle lighting, for example. For the most part the two interests do not overlap. Where they do, as stated above, it is my intention to refrain from using admin powers.
14. In the case of the CCM bicycle you have indicated that insignificant issues should not be included on wikipedia. How is it possible for an article to remain NPOV if less significant "theories" are, according to you, not permissible?
No, I have said that insignificant items should not be included in wider articles. The CCM bike is included where it should be, in the article for the company, no encyclopaedic content has been lost as a result.
Now here's an example without the loaded context for you: I have in my possession a five-volume account of the life and work of Robert Hooke by Dr Robert Gunther, a rare and treasured book. It was the copy used by Margaret Espinasse in compiling her (one-volume) biography of Hooke, which also included other sources such as the papers of the Royal Society. Both Gunther and Espinasse are cited as sources in Robert Hooke, but this article is much shorter than either Espinasse's or Gunther's books. Hooke is also namechecked (but nothing more) in History of science. So the question is: just exactly how much of the five volumes of Gunther do you think should be in History of science? And how much in [[Robert Hooke[]]? Just because some small piece of information is verifiable does not mean it needs to be included in any article at all, let alone multiple articles related to the subject. WP:ISNOT an indiscriminate collection of information, after all. And do be aware that this is trivia like the first demonstration to the Royal Society of the effect of different materials on the propagation of magnetic fields - which is quite a high order of trivia, as trivia goes. Yet the article on history of science does nothing more than name the man who did the maths for Boyle's Law, discovered that gravity was an inverse-square law, invented the science of microscopy, created and catalogued the library of the Royal Society, designed the Monument in London and the dome of St. Paul's Cathedral, invented the gridiron plan for city streets, invented the reflecting telescope, developed the laws of elasticity and so much more. What do you think was the impact on science of microscopy, the Gregorian telescope, spring balances and the inverse-square law of gravity? Was it more or less than the impact of a Canadian cycle manufacturer bolting an aftermarket motor conversion to a delivery bike?
As to POV, there is, as far as I can tell, no independently verifiable theory of the significance of the Canada Cycle and Motor company's fitting of a commercial aftermarket motor assistance conversion to an existing delivery bike, as being a pivotal moment in the history of the development of the motorised bicycle. As I have said more than once in the relevant talk pages, if any such evidence is forthcoming this bike will of course be discussed.
And I can't believe that you've just sucked up another twenty irreplaceable minutes of my life arguing about this. I thought the issue was closed a month ago.
15. Your involvement in articles and escaltion of often bad situation has been noted. Certain of your article edits are considered sneeky. Do you feel this has a significance on your status as admin and the position of knowlege you are supposed to assume?
Certain edits? Which ones? Considered by whom? Escalating? In which cases? Or are you confusing not being a pushover with escalating a situation? Please provide diffs.
16. Your past indicated that you have participated in many deletions. What was your tendency of voting? (delete, keep, comment) Would you considere yourself, as I say, a deletionist?
Your past use of the word deletionist indicates that you may have a fundamental misunderstanding over its meaning; you have accused me of deletionism for removing content from one article after having first verified that it exists in another, for example. But for the record I think this is an encyclopaedia. My views on linkspam, lists of trivia, vanity articles, long articles on nonentities, websites with Alexa rankings in the hundreds of thousands or above, online RPGs due for release some time next year and so on are well known - I even include a commentary in my wikisig - and I am equally sure lots of people would be keen to remove Handley Page Type L as "planecruft". My trivia threshold is higher than some, lower than others. That is why we require consensus for deletion, and that's why I've made the comments at the top about the more contentious types of deletion.
As to my AfD voting record, I have no idea and no easy way to find out, nor would I want to since I've always felt uneasy about the very idea of keeping a tally (it seems a bit like collecting scalps and I can see no good result from an obsessive focus AfD outcomes). Nor, for the record, do I have any idea how many articles I've tagged for speedy while on newpage patrol, or how many I've AfDd myself (I do not usually even vote when I nominate). There must be quite a few since fairly often now an N pops up in my watchlist, indicating that someone has just recreated a previously deleted article.
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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/JzG&oldid=1114635858"