Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jza84

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.

Jza84

[edit]

Final (83/4/2); Ended 09:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Jza84 (talk · contribs) - I'm really not all that sure how this particular candidate has slipped through the cracks, except as evidence that Jza84 sees adminship not as a trophy, or level to attain, but rather as a way to increase his activity on Wiki to enhance the Encylopedia. Thankfully, Jza84 has agreed that adminship is a logical step to futher his endeavors as a Wikipedian. Why am I so enthusiastic about this particular user? Look at his user page! We have here folks, an article builder! Someone who knows Wiki-policy, not because of arbitrary edits to AIV, or AfD, or anything like that, (although he has edited there when necessary), but because this is a user that knows what we're all here for...to build a better encyclopedia. I have no hesitation in nominating Jza84 for the extra tool set. He has proven that he is here for the betterment of Wikipedia. He doesn't want the tools for the sake of the tools, rather, he knows that he can contribute even more than his 12000 edits by having a few extra tabs. I give you, esteemed community, Jza84, for consideration.Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination from Pedro. Dear all, I take great pleasure in nominating Jza84 for adminship. Despite his fantastic signature (!) I've not really had the opportunity to interact with this user prior to a few days ago. Initially he approached me regarding some mentoring, but after a review by Keeper and myself, along with the input of many senior editors, it really did seem there was very little benefit in that process. So, some bullets;

Attitude

  • We've pretty much had to cajole Jza84 into adminship. He declined an offer by Rudget at the start of the year [1]. No power hunger issues here.
  • Civility. Jza84 was candid when he first approached me regarding difficulties he has had with other editors. This, of course, rings alarm bells for me, as many will know I'm a bit old fashioned on the cvility front. I've reviewed the cases he brought forward, and I find a humble and modest editor, who can keep cool under pressure. The candidate amplifies on the issues within his answer to Q3, but I find no concerns.
  • On this RFA - this is one of the finest statements of intent one could hope for. If he get's the bit, great. If not, no big deal. An excellent view point we would all do well to remember at times, in many areas of Wikipedia and not just RfA.

Editing

  • As Keeper so eloquently details above, this candidate is an article writer. And a fantastic one.
  • Policy knowledge is demonstrated through his writing and collaborative skills, with excellent use of talk pages to thrash out decisions.
  • A template edit count many can only ever aspire to!

House Keeping

  • E-mail enabled
  • Clean Block Log
  • Sensible User Pages
  • Edit summary use 100% in recent months
  • 11 months tenure, and over 11,000 edits for those that like to count.

All I appreciate some will find concerns about "need for the tools" from this editor. Please, before opposing for that reason, pause and think. The ability to move over redirects, or edit protected templates will be a great bonus for Jza84. In addition, if he deletes just one WP:CSD#G10 page or nips one bad vandal in the bud then granting tools will be a Net Positive. There is simply no reason to believe there will be abuse or misuse from this candidate and having the +sysop bit can only help Wikipedia even more. I hope that the community find themselves in agreeance with this course of action. Pedro :  Chat  07:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly accept! Thank you. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate

[edit]

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

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: I'm a content builder first and foremost. I enjoy writing articles, particularly collaborations (such as Peterloo Massacre). I don't "patrol" the more sexy or even (dare I say) trendy (but of course, vital) corners of Wikipedia, like say WP:AFD or WP:IFD. Instead, I'm a servant to the WikiProjects I work with, and I put myself at the disposal of those great teams.
Certainly, the authorisation to move and/or delete mistake or uncontrovertial pages would be a massive aid with the ongoing organisation, progress and expansion of my chosen WikiProjects. WP:GM and WP:UK barely have an admin amongst them, meaning some issues are left to fester way longer than they should. There's been many occations where we've had to fill out a form in a backlogged process to make amends to a minor disaster.
I also have around 160 pages on my watchlist, including some of the "biggies" (as I like to think): England, Scotland, United Kingdom, British people are amongst the most visited articles on the site (bringing with them regular unsavourary edits) which I have watchlisted and work with closely to keep in shape. Other, more regional articles I work with would also benefit from a closer eye by an admin, particuarly with regards to (occational) semi-protection.
All this said however, if sucessful, I intend to take part in any and all aspects of the role; there would be no part I'd shy away from. Certainly I feel WP:ANI and WP:3RR are not staffed as well as they should be and I'd begin to work with that much more so.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I rather shamelessly list them on my userpage I'm afraid (sorry)! They include a number of FAs, GAs, GACs, FLs, TFAs, project guidelines, and WikiProject founding - all of which I'm pleased with in equal measure. Why are they my best? Well, you'd have to ask the guys at WP:FAC and such; it is they, as a team, who gave these the thumbs up at the end of the day. I write for our readers and if they agree that some of it is amongst the "finest work", then I'm happy and honoured.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: To the first question, no. I have to state categorically that (so far at least!), what happens on Wikipedia doesn't cause me stress. Few things do, even in real life, luckily. Sure I get annoyed, and think to myself "what's wrong with these people?!", but it's just not in my character to get upset about a debate or edit-skirmish on a website; it's generally "sticks and stones" type stuff. On the flipside though, I do have passion for the project, and have no problem thrashing out a content issue on a talk page with robust debate. Simillarly, I have a distinct dislike for discrimination in comments, and insist on civility at all times. On the whole however, I like to think I've had a healthy, trouble-free and productive usership.
I guess you're looking for evidence of my behaviours though. "Conflicts" I've been involved with have included episodes with Bpeps (talk · contribs), Dmcm2008 (talk · contribs), and Yorkshirian (talk · contribs). How did I deal with them? Well, conflict is always a struggle, but I think I handled these as well as I could. The threads at User_talk:Bpeps/archive1, User_talk:Dmcm2008 and Wikipedia_talk:Requests for comment/Yorkshirian respectively will probably show how I've reacted.
How will I react in the future? As an admin, I'd see myself as an ambassador for the project and would endevour to behave impecably. I believe dealling with conflict on Wikipedia becomes easier and less stressful over time as one's experience and exposure to the project grows. I feel ready to serve the site with that extra level of competence and composure.
Optional questions from jc37
In order to illustrate that you have at least a passing knowledge/understanding of the tools and responsibilities that go along with adminship, please answer the following questions:
  • 4. Please describe/summarise why and when it would be appropriate for:
  • A: In short, only in accordance with our blocking policy! But I know you are looking for a paraphrase to demonstrate understanding... OK, well an editor would be looking at a block if they demonstrate persistent disruptive and/or destructive behaviours, whether it be through vandalism, page blanking, civility issues, spamming, legal threats, privacy violations, copyright issues and so on in an effort to protect the integrity of Wikipedia and its communities against further damage. However, users should be given an appropriate amount of warnings first (from observation a warning often curtails the issue and, I hope at least some ips, gets them on board as serious editors). I would like to point out that I'm aware that school IPs and ranges must be blocked with care.
  • A:Full protection should be applied to articles (or indeed templates and other pages) to halt edit warring in an effort to force, or rather facilitate discussion and negotiation on talk pages. Full protection should be for an appropriately limited period of time. That is unless it's a userpage/usertalk page protection, which may occur after abuse, and which may be indefinate. Semi protection should be used in cases of continuous vandalism or other integrity issues; it limits editting to editors who are likely to be trusted. I good and recent example I've seen of semi protection's effective use was to Denshaw - an article which obtained international (and unwelcome) notoriety after it had been vandalised with some spoof material.
  • A: Only if it meets the speedy deletion criteria. I'll paraphrase if there's a request, but that criteria page outlines the instances where SD is permissable.
  • 5. How does one determine consensus? And how may it be determined differently on a talk page discussion, an XfD discussion, and a DRV discussion.
  • A: Consensus certainly isn't a science, as I would hope we are all aware, but it can most often be determined by careful consideration and analysis of each comment made during a discussion. The bringing of citation, examples, and compromise to discussion should add value to a certain perpective, as opposed to simple headcounts. A consensus doesn't necessarily mean everyone agrees, but it should show broad or, preferably widespread agreement between editors. In this capacity, there isn't any fundamental difference between a consensus on talk pages, XfDs and DRVs, other than specific codified policy probably informs decisions more so at XfD than in say, a request for a page move in cases of disambiguation.
  • 6. User:JohnQ leaves a message on your talk page that User:JohnDoe and User:JaneRoe have been reverting an article back and forth, each to their own preferred version. What steps would you take?
  • A: Well, I'd keep an open mind; I'd investigate to see if the claim was accurate. If it is so, I'd simply warn, protect or block appropriately. Certainly, if each have 100 revisions between them, but are fairly new and are each not aware (or have not been shown to have been made aware) of 3RR, then a warning is still in order. If there are futher violations, well, policies such as WP:3RR dictate, but certainly we should be looking at resolving issues amicably and I'd be urging all parties to take up discussion.
Optional question from Keepscases
  • 7. Are there any specific administrators whom you consider particularly influential and/or especially good Wikipedia role models? Why?
  • A: That's a good question, and one I haven't seen raised before at an RFA... I'm going to give an answer that might not be strong in terms of "point scoring", but it'll be sincere (and cheesey): it is users rather than administrators who've been influential upon my usership and who've been role models to me. The fact that some happen to be administrators, to me, is actually immaterial. I could list a whole bunch of users I admire or have admired (some have since departed): User:Barryob, User:Morwen, User:Lozleader, User:G-Man, User:Aquilina, User:Richerman, User:Deacon of Pndapetzim, User:Joshii, User:MRSC, User:Nev1, User:Rodw, User:Ddstretch, User:Malleus Fatuarum, (sorry if I've left anyone out) are all users I admire for their influence upon Wikipedia, and whom happen to yet be administrators. Certainly User:Rudget has been influential, and positively so. He is a bonefide role model who happens to be an admin. Why? -- passion, calmness, attitude, punctuallity, coolness, wisdom, consideration, he's been an asset to the site.
  • Let me note that I like both the answer and also (perhaps especially) the question, which is to me more revealing than most I've seen in scanning RfAs. Or rather, it reveals something that those other questions generally don't. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Question from Yorkshirian
  • 8. I asked this question lower down the page, but Jza seems to have missed it. It was in regards to some of the conflicts Jza gets in, in regards to politics in articles and whether or not he would use his administrative tools in a way which would suit his stance or more resonsibily and a manner which would not be a conflict of interest, a third party admin would be brought in instead on such issues. I'll just repost the original text below...
So for example, if you were to get in any content disputes, rather than use admin powers in a way which would suit your stance, an outside third party admin would be brought in instead? This is the standard procedure with admins? ... I think you'd do an OK job on everything else, just this was the part which was of some concern to me, especially as I have had a first hand content dispute with you. Thanks. - Yorkshirian (talk) 23:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should've made this clearer. I'm going to abstain from answering this additional question, and I'll face the wrath of the community for it if they so desire. I'm taking this stance this because a) an ongoing RFC (found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Yorkshirian), b) I believe I covered this in an answer already, and c) I've accepted the oppose, and don't feel a burning urge to challenge it. I'd appreciate it if the questioner could respect my wishes to leave it at that. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems rather strange to me that you would avoid answering this question and sounds almost like there is something holding you back from point blank saying that you would not abuse administrative powers in such a way. In any case, should you be accepted and then abuse the powers in such a way this section could be directly referenced as proof of intent on your part. The question is more a general inquiry in regards to actions, rather than my personal vote here. I hope you understand how this could look bad for you. - Yorkshirian (talk) 00:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Jza84 before commenting.

Discussion

[edit]
Support
[edit]
  1. Support Per my nom. Pedro :  Chat  09:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support ostensibly per the nominators. I have checked the contribs and links and they seem to be very civil and a great article writer. We need more admins of this calibre. Woody (talk) 09:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Extremely Strong Support For the reasons the nominators give. Jza84 isa wonderful article builder, and his possession of the tools will enhance his abilities in that area. Because he has been actively writing articles for so long, it is inevitable that he will have been in disagreements: indeed, it would be almost suspicious if he had not been. In every case that I am aware of, his behaviour during these disagreements was civil whilst being firm and searching in his ability to reach the best decision for the matters under discussion, or, in other words, impeccable. In terms of his behaviour if he gets the tools: the behaviour he has shown so far makes me think it is certain that he will not misuse them, but will use them wisely and with the main purpose always in mind–the building of a good encyclopaedia by collaboration and discussion with others. His own work in this aim will certainly be enhanced by possession of the tools, and that will be good for all of us.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. 100% Support - This user is a pleasure to work with: He is a good article builder, voluntarily does article reviews and keeps a cool head at all times! Best of luck!--Cameron (t|p|c) 10:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong Support Strong article writer, is wonderfully civil, put short, no problems I can see. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 10:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - Writes a damn good article. I've seen him in action calming the stormy waters and explains his reasoning very well. He would be an asset to the sysop-hood. Bill Reid | Talk 10:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support: fantastic editor, no concerns from me —Alex.Muller 10:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support - this is the sort of editor that has built Wikipedia's best articles. Looks very capable of using admin tools without issue. Monkeyblue 11:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support : I don't "patrol" the more sexy or even (dare I say) trendy (but of course, vital) corners of Wikipedia, like say WP:AFD or WP:IFD. Instead, I'm a servant to the WikiProjects I work with, and I put myself at the disposal of those great teams. -- Do I need any other reason to support you ?. I really appreciate people who wants to create and improve articles and not just tag articles for deletions. I support Admins with a mop in one hand and a pen in another hand. You are Bold and a great editor. Best of luck -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 11:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. No problems here. Good article editor who knows and understands policy. Malinaccier Public (talk) 12:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 12:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support I have worked with Jza84 and seen him in action on some other pages. No problems. Mr Stephen (talk) 12:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support A very devoted Wikipedian. I don't usually support candidates without much admin-related experience, but Jza84 has shown he's very capable and willing to develop his skills in a responsible manner. I've seen him make great improvements to his conflict-resolution skills over the past year. Epbr123 (talk) 13:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support A good editor, with a good attitude. Nothing more needs saying Fritzpoll (talk) 13:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support per noms and info. Trust will not abuse. Qb | your 2 cents 13:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC) change to neutral, see below. Qb | your 2 cents 14:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. I'm not sure it's possible to support anymore than I doing right now. Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk? 13:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. All looks good here. I like Jza's attitude and can really tell he wants to be an administrator for the right reasons. Fully qualified so has my support. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. I'd be hard-pressed to think of anyone less likely to abuse the admin tools. His contribution to UK geography articles has been immense, and access to the tools can only increase his value to the encyclopedia. My slight reservation is that he's a Rangers supporter, but today I guess most of us in Britain are Rangers supporters, so that's understandable. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support per Malleus. I mean, per nom. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose, rejecting a Rudget nom is prima facie evidence of power hunger Kidding, definite support. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 14:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support from me and the otters. (Sorry, my otters can't vote separately.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 14:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support - Good knowledge of policy, strong article builder. Net positive. Wisdom89 (T / C) 14:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. A good and rational user. Will be even more of an asset to WP. -- Mentisock 15:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Looking over his contributions (discussions in particular) I'm not too worried about this user abusing the tools. Adminship is a net positive. --CapitalR (talk) 15:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. Looks good overall. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 15:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Strong support. I've worked with Jza84 on several of WP:GM's activities. As well as being a prolific editor with many fine contributions to the main space to his name, in my experience he has always been civil and happy to help me when I've ventured into an area of wikipedia I know he is more familiar with. His contributions to a range of featured articles has no doubt aided his understanding of wikipedia policy. I believe that providing him with the extra tools of adminship would make an already invaluable editor better. Nev1 (talk) 16:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support - With all these long and spelled out words, I am sure he's smart. But answers to questions look excellent. =D <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 16:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. I am extremely happy to support and endorse the quest for adminship by Jza. He has been an exemplary editor in all respects that are possible on this fine wiki, with involvement on every level. He has, as noted above in both the nominations and some supports, declined the initial offer of administratorship in the early days of 2008 when I recognised that Jza had made outstanding, and even in some places, distinguised and noteworthy contributions, especially within the Manchester article, which I also luckily helped to build up. He has near absolute dedication to the wellbeing of the encyclopedia, and as he noted in my first attempt at adminship during 2007 - "This user has a calm, collected temperament, with sound judgement and a clear and sincere enthusiasm for furthering Wikipedia. I would welcome this user as an admin". (#34) Not only does that apply to his collectively excellent working attitude - which is continually and relentingly positive - but also to his manner and respect for those he collaborates with. I can even remember on at least one occasion where he helped resolved a dispute between two users. If he is not worthy for adminship, I do not know who is. Fully qualified candidate. Rudget (Help?) 16:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Know this user well and by and large I'd be happy for him to gain mopship. I think he needs to rethink how he goes about his POV, such as not advertising it so blatantly on his user page and insisting on it in so many places. This is an encyclopedia and political stuff is for elsewhere, and even if it isn't, there's no need to get yourself labeled in the minds of other users uselessly. Quite a few times he has not properly interpreted policy, and this is a concern for me ... but I'm sure he will be more careful of this when he gets the mop. But above all he needs to develop a thicker skin. I'm serious here. Sometimes you need to think of wikipedians more as forces of nature than personalities, esp. when you become an admin, and to hold off a bit before becoming offended. But he is a good content editor and there's no reason he should be denied the tools if and when he needs to use 'em, and if he heeds these points I'm sure he would be a good admin too. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support - A thoroughly committed contributor with a thorough knowledge of our policies and practices. MRSC • Talk 16:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Considerably strong support meets my criteria, knows policy and knows what we're about.--Phoenix-wiki 17:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Even though I have had disagreements with Jza84 in the past I think he will make a good admin. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 18:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Very qualified candidate. Keepscases (talk) 19:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Worthy candidate to be given the Administrator tools. Zenlax T C S 19:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Moral support per 2-0 ;) Seriously, great article writer and work with UK geography wikiproject. EJF (talk) 20:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Solid answers to all questions, appears to be a very good candidate! --InDeBiz1 (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Seen the candidate keeping a clear head and a civil tongue, though firm on occasions, when in dispute with others. No reason to think that he would abuse his position in the future in such circumstances, and WP would benefit from his enmopping. BencherliteTalk 21:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Excellent answer to Q1, no "red flag" contribs, and an extremely trustworthy nom.--Koji†Dude (C) 21:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support - Excellent contributor, and great answers to questions. I would certainly trust this user to be a sysop. asenine say what? 22:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support - always positive, civil, helpful and committed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support - reviewed your history the other day, it looked very good. I waited to see if anyone would bring up anything concerning, I'm not seeing it. I'm happy to support at this time. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 00:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Hurrah Seems like a good candidate. I trust they will be careful while familiarising themselves with the tools. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 01:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. Looks fully qualified and I also trust Pedro's judgment. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. I have to say that I liked your answers to the questions I posted. My cursory glance at your contribs + seeing several people that I trust to go over contribs with a fin toothed comb also voting in support, (and you were nominateded by Pedro and Keeper76?), just pushes me towards Support. - jc37 02:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support - Not perfect, but besides me, who is. I see no real problems here.--Bedford 06:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support - A good candidate, I have worked with him on a number of articles and have had no problems with his work. Excellent contribution to UK Geography especially with the production of a series of maps for the infoboxes. Keith D (talk) 10:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support, seems fine. Stifle (talk) 11:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support I like his edits.--Dacium (talk) 11:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Some of Jza84 tests at civility have been with me and the patience he demonstrated was perhaps beyond the call of most editors. Jza84 has built up the GM project from nothing to a dozen FA/GAs which is certainly very very commendable. The problem of him reinventing persona and salting userpages under privacy rules could seem to be a problem, but unlikely to effect a future role in Wikipedia -- BpEps - t@lk 12:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for clarity, the "reinventing persona" was discussed here, particularly with this diff. Also, I have never requested a WP:SALT, nor do I have the technical ability to make that so. The support is welcomed none-the-less however! Thanks, --Jza84 |  Talk  12:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support A tireless editor whose skills are so valuable to Wikipedia and one who continues to grow.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 13:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support Good article builder, solid grasp of policies, no reason for concern. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 13:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. I have seen quite a lot of Jza84 here and there. If this were a beatification, I'd have a few remarks to make, but it's only an RfA. Nothing I've seen suggests that he isn't the right stuff. No worries. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support - I've spotted Jza84 around now and again, and overall he seems like an excellent editor. There are concerns here in there in the contributions, as raised below, but an excellent (and busy) editor is bound to hit the occasional conflict. The real question for me is do I trust him to be a good admin - and there I see no problems. :) - Bilby (talk) 14:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. Great writer. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support Speed CG Talk 16:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    comment BROKEN SIG REFACTORED by Dan Beale-Cocks 08:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support; great contributions to the encyclopedia, civil and friendly, knows the rules - great candidate! -- Natalya 20:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support as above. The issues brought up by those objecting/neutral don't bother me. J Milburn (talk) 21:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. Excuse the following verbose comment... I don't like to give anything but full support, and I've been holding back a little because of a niggling doubt about the circumstances in which Jza84 turned down the earlier suggestion that he run for admin, a doubt which perhaps had something to do with the way in which that decision was presented here. I recognize that it's the job of the nominator to present the best case possible; but Jza84 declined earlier not because he wasn't keen (and there's nothing wrong with being keen, in my view), rather because he felt he was embroiled in some "ill timed" conflicts at that point. But there's nothing wrong with conflict per se: I agree with ddstretch that if anything a lack of conflict would be almost as worrisome. I sense a slight suggestion that conflict should be avoided in the run up RfA. That's understandable, of course, but I am wary if coaches or nominators were to start advocating such avoidance in order to ensure success at RfAs. In my book, at least, it's much more impressive to see an editor confront, manage, and work through conflict to a mutually successful resolution, than to avoid it altogether. I've seen evidence of Jza84 doing that well over the past few months, and am especially encouraged that he can work productively with editors with whom he has earlier had disagreements. (See also Bpeps's support above.) I am also impressed by his responses to questions and comments at RfA. As such, and in the confidence that his recent behavior is not merely strategic, he does indeed have my full support. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There's an ingrained problem with the RfA process that makes the previous reluctance that Jza84 had inevitable. I quote: "When you've had a couple of tussles with people within the three months preceeding the nom, opposes will inevitably arise." I believe that the most recent oppose vote demonstrates in a timely manner the truth of that statement. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh. It is completely understandable. But perhaps one of these days I'll write out (as other editors do in what I think is a useful practice) some jbmurray-desiderata for voting in RfAs. If so, I would definitely be impressed by editors who show that they can manage conflict, rather than simply avoiding it. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I entirely agree with the comments made by jbmurray and Malleus here. We need as admins people who do not shy away from tackling difficult areas, and that will almost inevitably lead to some disputes. The presence of disputes is not an obstacle: indeed, they are necessary, because by looking at them, it is one of the main ways by which we can see how the candidates deal with them–how they manage disputes and conflict, or how they behave under such circumstances. This is certainly crucial information to assist us judge whether they can perform well as an administrator. The feeling that people have about avoiding difficult areas in a run up to an RfA may be understandable if (a) they want to become an administrator coupled with (b) the tendency of people to object to their nomination on grounds that they lost some dispute, and (c) the lack of clarity in the process that means one isn't sure how much weight such objections are given. However, it leads to a situation which removes important information by which a reliable judgment can be made, and may result in errors of false positives (well-suited) and misses (not suitables). As such, it needs to be pointed out from time to time if only to try to combat it.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Strong Support - will use tools wisely. Basketball110 My story/Tell me yours 22:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. 100% Strong Support - great user and will be a credit to the admin team. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 00:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. The candidate is a wonderful article-builder, is trustowrthy, and understands policy. Majoreditor (talk) 02:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support - I think this editor is very helpful, friendly, and has greatly contributed to Wikipedia. An ideal candidate for adminship.--Celtus (talk) 05:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support - an excellent editor who would make a conscientious admin. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support - A positive editor and a number one contact on Wikipedia:WikiProject Greater Manchester. Leibovits (talk) 15:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Yet another person that I've granted rollback to. Acalamari 16:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much for it too! --Jza84 |  Talk  16:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You're welcome. I'm happy with the result. Acalamari 17:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support - A welcoming, helpful, and all-around outstanding editor, who would make a great admin. Asdfasdf1231234 (talk) 20:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Was considering nominating him, looks like I was too slow. Oldelpaso (talk) 20:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support ~ Words I associate with Jza's Wikipedia activity are: wisdom, cool-headedness, common sense, approachability and efficiency. All of these strike me as good qualities for an admin to possess. Also, he has an excellent habit of spotting deficient articles and working constructively with other editors until they are significantly improved ... often in circumstances where it would be much easier to sit back and look elsewhere. (See Denshaw, for example.) Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 20:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support Meets my expectations. MBisanz talk 05:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support Excellent candidate, fide et opera. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 08:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Per Manchester collaborations. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support: --Bhadani (talk) 03:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support Looks good. Best of luck to you! GlassCobra 13:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support Appears to be a fine candidate. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support He/she (sorry, don't know which) has a wonderful sense of humor. That, coupled with excellent article building and working on articles already present are a plus. Furthermore, I find that his answers to all parts of Q4 illustrate that he has an understanding of all of the policies and guidelines that are relevant to administrators. Also, his answer to Q8 was calm and collected and also goes to prove that he is incredibly civil. No problems here, good luck! Razorflame Report false positives 00:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support Great candidate. hmwithτ 05:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support Good 'pedia builder and net positive. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support - has contributed much useful content. Has engaged constructively in discussions, and even when they have become somewhat heated, has kept a cool head. Also has a good understanding of policy in areas he is involved with. Warofdreams talk 19:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support Ashton1983 (talk) 21:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support, saw user deal with an issue with one of his maps politely, appropriately and considerately - a good indicator, and certainly good enough for me. Neıl 龱 07:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support, Jza84 works hard, is courteous in discussion and will make a significant contribution with the mop and bucket. Kbthompson (talk) 12:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Late to the party support. the wub "?!" 17:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  82. The Transhumanist 22:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 06:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
  1. Oppose The user has done a lot of good work for Wikipedia, but I am concerned about him becoming an Administrator. The user is too clinical in applying the guidelines and sees them as rigid rules which must be adhered to. However, the general consensus view is to agree with the request for him to become an Administrator. Time will tell. Cwb61 (talk) 13:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello cwb61. Is there any chance you could elaborate on this a little bit? I just don't quite follow it. Examples might help me understand, but I respect that it just might be your judgement of the candidate from multiple areas. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think he's talking about how the user will always adhere to the rules (and not ignore them per common sense), but without examples this theory is useless. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 14:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Over time I've come to the conclusion that the user is a fine editor but I would not be happy with them being an administrator. It’s really immaterial anyway. The vote is overwhelming in favour for the candidate. Cwb61 (talk) 15:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the clarification. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Damn! You're first on my blocking list! No I'm joking of course. I've nothing but respect for User:Cwb61. I suspect his oppose is based on our alternative perspectives on WP:PLACE and/or our take on article titling a while back; I could be wrong though. I've no problem with this oppose, but can assure Cwb61 that I won't let him down if it came to me being an admin, and if there's a gesture I could make to guarantee that, then I will be happy to make it so. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In answer to about "alternative perspectives" and "WP:PLACE". Although not happy with them, I've got over them a while ago. As to about the guarantee. Will it have a 12 or 24 month one? Cwb61 (talk) 20:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    3 year guarantee. :) It's not been asked, but I would be listed under WP:AOR. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a question for the candidate. You have a good understanding of Wikipedia and its proceedures, so why did you create a new account (i.e. Jza84) when you could just have had your previous username User:Jhamez84 renamed at Wikipedia:Changing username? As it is now, your history is split between the old and the new usernames. The earliest edit as Jhamez84 was at 01:29, 3 February 2006. So at the top of this page in 'House Keeping' mentions "11 months tenure". In total the tenure is "2 years and 4 months". As it is some users won't have a full picture on the candidate. Cwb61 (talk) 21:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see under support number 48 above. Hope that helps, --Jza84 |  Talk  21:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It does explain it fully. Still not happy with the nomination though. ;) Cwb61 (talk) 21:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose - Although Jza has made some contributions to Wikipedia which are very good, such as the many FA he has created. I do not feel comfortable that he would use the administrative powers in a correct way all of the time. I feel he would use them incorrectly when it comes to political issues which he does not agree with and use his power to push across his stance. Though certaintly even if he fails he has made many FA contributions and this is a thing the community can value. The every day run of the mill admin tasks I think he could do, just when it comes to politics I'm unsure. - Yorkshirian (talk) 20:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A valid concern Yorkshirian. It would be useful to others if you could provide diffs that back up your stance that Jza will use his admin "powers" to "push across his stance". I respect your oppose and you are certainly not obliged to provide anything to back up your feeling, but it would be helpful for other editors when commenting here if you could. Pedro :  Chat  20:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The issues raised in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Yorkshirian might give some context to this. MRSC • Talk 20:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I couldn't possibly comment on any correlation between the oppose and the RFC, but I understood that administrators are (or at least should be) even more accountable for their actions than non-admins. Administrators "serve and protect" Wikipedia and its editors. As a content builder, I'm sure I'll get into a dispute over content again, it's inevitable. But it'd be a gross-abuse of the role for an admin to block users their in conflict with, or say protect a page with their own preferences. In my experience, that kind of thing has been flagged up objectors and dealt with rather quickly in the past anyway; there would be no "incorrect" use with "political issues" on my part, for those reasons and more. If there was, there's a system to stop it swiftly, and I'd be reprimanded accordingly. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So for example, if you were to get in any content disputes, rather than use admin powers in a way which would suit your stance, an outside third party admin would be brought in instead? This is the standard procedure with admins? ... I think you'd do an OK job on everything else, just this was the part which was of some concern to me, especially as I have had a first hand content dispute with you. Thanks. - Yorkshirian (talk) 21:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you answer this please Jza? just to clarify. Cheers. - Yorkshirian (talk) 22:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose This editor has ignored discussions and inserted contentious material flouting agreed norms, and I would oppose their request for Adminship.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Domer48 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 15 May 2008
    I have to say, I don't think that's a valid reason to oppose anyone, even if I say so myself. There had been a discussion on the talk page, and that content reflects real world practice, and verifiably so IMHO. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a perfectly valid reason, that was your version of the page from two months ago, it was disputed the second you added it, your not fit to be an admin in my opinion. There was clearly no consensus to revert to your version, and you did not even bother to take part in the discussion, sorry but that is not the behaviour of an admin. --Domer48 (talk) 22:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There are several entries under my name at Talk:Northern Irish people. I'm not going to say anything more than that, because, if you've based your oppose on this point, I doubt I'll convince you round anyway. Right? --Jza84 |  Talk  22:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Your first edit to the talk page was 24 hours after you made the edit you knew was hotly disputed, you made no attempt to discuss it since you made it the first time, when it was instantly rejected. BigDuncTalk 22:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that's assumptive (there's no way of knowing that I "knew it was hotly disputed"). I wasn't aware it had been quite so contentious (nor had anyone made me aware). At the time I happened to believe it was a straight forward correction restoring NPOV. It was only shortly afterwards I reviewed the talk page that I felt that I had to contribute. This all said, I think I've been fair and worked well with others on the talk page, and perhaps if theres a comment I've made there that is not appropriate, I'll concede that this is a fair reason to oppose. Simillarly, I note that the article is now not far from what I restored. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You weren't aware it was contentious? Come on, the talk page makes it clear it was, so what you just blindly reverted to your version without even reading the talk page or taking part in the discussion. What sort of admin doesn't even read talk pages before taking decisions? 22:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BigDunc (talk • contribs)
    The ones that follow WP:BRD, I guess. If you can't assume good faith on my part, or convince you about the timeline of events, then, well, it's for others to decide on how useful your comments are. Certainly I don't think it's a wholly constructive reason to oppose. I think we'll have to agree to disagree, which is a shame, because I think I worked well on that content issue. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's just it, you didn't WP:BRD. You initially were bold and made the disputed edit on 24 March, were reverted almost straight away, then came back two months later without attempting to discuss and reverted to your version. So why didn't you discuss before making the edit again? And also I haven't opposed your RfA. BigDuncTalk 23:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is drifting off into something that's probably more appropriate for that particular talk page. That said, am I going to convince you that I acted in good faith? - I get the impression I'm really not. If I'm not, there's not a great deal that can be achieved from this thread. Can you assure me that you're not opposing my RFA because, say, you might happen to disagree with my contributions at Talk:Northern Irish people? We're all entitled to an opinion. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (Sorry, I've noted you haven't opposed - but suspect you will!) --Jza84 |  Talk  23:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose candidate is an editor, therefore can't support. Al Tally (talk) 22:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Erm aren't all candidates just editors before they become admins? <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 23:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I fail to see what's wring with being an editor. Perhaps Al tally could elaborate on his reasons for the oppose? Nev1 (talk) 23:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems all the current RFA candidates have recieved this opposition from Al tally. ([2], [3], [4], [5], [6]). --Jza84 |  Talk  23:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Vote striken out. The user is parody of User:Kmweber; WP:POINT troll. Icewedge (talk) 23:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Stricken per [thisBalloonman (talk) 00:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Edit wars under the totally incorrect assumption that NPOV applies to facts on a subject he knows nothing about. Given this and other disturbing involvement in Irish related articles listed above, we can do without what could possibly be a POV warrior admin. Also his assumption that I was not WP:AGF tells a tale too. BigDuncTalk 09:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmmm. Well, I wouldn't go as far as to suggest I know nothing about that subject. Whilst also, I don't think one change, one revert with a policy cited in the summary constitutes edit warring. That matter was resolved within the hour through a discussion I facilitated here. Though you're entitled to it, like Domer48's point (a user you work very closely with), I don't think thats a justified opposition; I don't think there's an awful lot I could've done differently there. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to agree with Jza84 here. If one reads through the discussion, one can see that Jza84 was calmly upholding the standards of wikipedia against positions that denied that a written supposed fact did not need any verification (even though it was contentious), and some resistance to resolving the issue in a sensible way by marking what seemed to be a quote as one. If anything, this adds strength to Jza84's nomination.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but an incorrect policy was cited. NPOV does not apply to facts, I would have thought that was obvious. So it's a gross misapplication of policy, from an editor we're being expected to believe knows policy. His entire involvement in Irish affairs has been problematic, and I don't trust him. BigDuncTalk 12:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are no facts without there having to be an interpretation of them when written on wikipedia: the language used to describe events necessarily simplifies by omitting information, and the choice of what to omit (or, the Abstraction as it is technically known) is an interpretation. This much has been known for a long time within areas of philosophy concerned with such matters. The matter could be described in terms of the need for a neutral interpretation of the facts, or of avoiding bias., it mattered little what administrative name was used unless one were engaged in wikilawyering, so long as the sense of what was meant was clear, and the sense of what was being argued by Jza84 was clear.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He jumped in feet first and was wrong, something which is a running problem with his involvement with Irish articles. We don't need admins who are POV warriors editing them. BigDuncTalk 15:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have more evidence? This seems to be something you feel strongly about. If you have a concern that I display, or rather have displayed negative behaviours, I'm willing to take on board constructive feedback. As it stands though, "getting something wrong", isn't an offense as such; repeated distructive behaviour is. Also, whatever you take back from this, please note, there's no such thing as an "Irish article": articles don't have national boundaries, anybody, from any background may edit any article they choose. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
  1. This has me a bit worried... not so much the discussion with the person who had an issue, but rather the whole edit war. This image was removed and added back 4 times. Overkill for something that is, to me at least, a simple fix... Qb | your 2 cents 14:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've left a breif note under number 2 below. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This also 'hot-headed reaction' is not exactly what might I expect from a prospective administrator: User_talk:Snowded#Requests for Mediation. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 15:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm. Well guys (1. and 2.), this was a toughy, and I did feel a little aggrieved by the happenings, but think it's only fair to point out that I tried to make amends here. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but if you look at the time stamps, you posted that reply before the other dealings that MightyWarrior brought up. Qb | your 2 cents 19:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's now May. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  19:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh holy crap that says April! Apologies Jza! Qb | your 2 cents 19:38, 14 May 2008 (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/Jza84&oldid=1144799528"