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

Final (65/3/1) ended 19:10 May 18, 2006 (UTC)

Joelr31 ( talk · contribs) – For me it is a privilege to nominiate Joel for adminship. Joel has been with us since July 2005. During this time he has become a very dedicated editor whose excellent contributions are now part of our project. Besides doing behind the scenes janitorial jobs, he is the originator of many quality intellectual articles (23) such as the Puerto Rican Spindalis and he has a featured article History of Puerto Rico, under his belt. Joel has 4 articles which have appeared in Wikipedias "Did You Know?" section and has created 10 templates, 18 categoires and one portal. The thing that most impresses me about Joel is not so much his dedication and edit count but, the way he handles himself with others. He is a courteous well mannered people-person who is calm under fire. This trait is especially useful when he deals with newcomers. Instead of discouraging a person, he encourages them. Joel is an excellent wikipedian and an asset to the Pedia. I truly believe that he will make a great administrator. Tony the Marine

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept Joelito ( talk) 18:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Support

1. Strong Support As nominator and even if I wasn't the nominator. Tony the Marine 18:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Support An impressively wide range of edits. S t e v e o 2 19:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Strong Support - I would have been happy to nominate him for adminship myself; never crossed my mind that he might not be one already. Good editor, good guy, has made a sterling contribution to the project, most of it in the form of good, solid content. Guettarda 19:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Strong support. Well-rounded and level-headed (and, there's nothing wrong with even careless mistakes, as long as they're not repeated, and you admit when you're wrong). Happy to recommend the mop, bucket and keys. Radio Kirk talk to me 19:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Strong Support I'm very impressed with this user's work and perspective. Rama's Arrow 19:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Support Give him a mop Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 19:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
7. KillerChihuahua ^?!? 20:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
8. Strong support. Buck ets ofg✐ 20:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
9. Support, but be sure to raise your number of Portal Talk edits. It's frightfully low ;-) — Cuivi é nen ( talk• contribs), Thursday, 11 May 2006 @ 20:13 UTC
10. Support per nom. -- Elkman - ^(talk) 20:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
11. Support per nom. -- Ton e 20:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
12. Support seems a good admin material abakharev 20:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
13. Strong Support nice guy, good responsible worker.-- Antonio Nikkie Kidman Martin 21:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
14. Support per nom. Gadig 20:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
15. Support the nomination. Otto 21:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
16. Support per nom. DarthVad e r 21:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
17. Support. My interaction with the nominator makes me trust his judgement fully, and a small analysis of the candidate's contribs confirms this. Good luck! Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 21:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
18. supportlooks good, admits when hes done wrong and fixes it Benon 22:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
19. Support, great answers to questions. Roy boy crash fan 22:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
20. Supportper Royboycrash23:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC) User:Mikereichold | User_talk:Mikereichold 23:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
21. Support per nom -- Tawker 23:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
22. Support per nom. Kimchi. sg 23:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply
23. Support, impressive article contributions, will be an asset as an admin. Deizio talk 00:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
24. Support I have noticed his huge contributions. Give him the mop.  Heltec   talk 
25. Support -- Jay( Reply) 01:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
26. Support. I see no reason to oppose. Another example of quality beating quantity. Grand master ka 01:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
27. Support Everything looks fantastic. joturn e r 01:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
28. It's a pleasure to support. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
29. Support per above. — Khoikhoi 03:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
30. Support, looks good. -- Ter e nc e Ong 04:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
31. Support-- Jusjih 08:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
32. Support do well with the mop! -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 08:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
33. Support - looks good. — Wh o uk ( talk) 08:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
34. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 10:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
35. Support - Good work! Afonso Silva 11:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
36. Support - a simple support from a simple wikipedian. -- Bhadani 14:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
37. Support per nom. -- S iva1979 ^{Talk to me} 17:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
38. Support. Valuable editor with good reason. - Darwinek 18:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
39. Support. Give him the mop.-- Kungfu Adam ^{( talk)} 19:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
40. Support coz Whouk did! Computerjoe 's talk 20:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
41. Support!!! Necesitamos mas Puertoriqueños Kuki ni 20:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
42. Support per Kukini. -- M1ss1ontomars2k4 21:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
43. Support - great editor — M e ts501 ^talk 22:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC) reply
44. Support - Joelr31 would be a great admin for Wikipedia. Mr. Turcotte 01:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC) reply
45. Support - Promising history. Good to have a Puerto Rican voice. Tijuana Brass ^{¡Épa!- E@} 01:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC) reply
46. Pointless pile-on support. But seriously, congrats, and, this is a bit premature, but I'm sure you'll be great with the tools. Werdna _{T c @ b C m L t} 02:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC) reply
47. Support 3416 is a huge amount of edits. Keeping this user from the mop for almost a year is too long. He is definitely a trustworthy and experienced user. Who in the right mind would oppose this one? Funnybunny ( ^talk/ _QRVS) 05:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC) reply
48. Support -- Canderous 08:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC) Talk reply
49. Support Joe I 13:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC) reply
50. Support Fine editor, good luck! gidonb 14:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC) reply
51. Support ForestH2
52. Support Looks good to me. Nephron  T| C 01:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC) reply
53. Support, insert "didn't know he wasn't one" cliche here -- Deville ( Talk) 01:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC) reply
54. Support, from another DYK junky. ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 06:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC) reply
55. Support you are actually just below my criteria but becasue "Tony" nominated you have my support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Looper5920 ( talk • contribs)
56. support - ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 16:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC) reply
57. Support: seems like a nice bloke. Thumbelina 22:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC) reply
58. Support - seems good. Metamagician3000 03:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply
59. Support Good guy, good editor. Knows his way around the wiki quite well. Nnfolz 15:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply

    Support. Fine. -- Bhadani 16:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC). Note Duplicate vote Srik e it^{( talk ¦ ✉)} 14:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC) reply

60. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply
61. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply
62. Support. -- DS1953 ^talk 22:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply
63. Support. Everything looks good. (Reviewing his edit history and writing was a pleasure!) Sandy 23:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply
64. Support. I agree with Steveo2... Very nice range of edits! Beautiful. -→ Buchanan-Hermit ™/ !? 07:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC) reply
65. Support DG X 16:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose

1. Oppose until we get a method to remove abusive admins. Ardenn 14:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC) reply
   • It would be pointless to argue against Ardenn "Oppose" vote. Ardenn simply believes that no adminship should go unopposed (See comments in other RfA's) and is nothing personal against Joel or his ability to administrate. However, Ardenn should know that if he wants a better method to remove abusive admins. he should let his concerns known at Wikipedia's village pump or in the talk page. Tony the Marine 17:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC) reply

     Indeed. You won't build consensus by complaining on RfAs. (And a method for removing abusive admins, the ArbCom, already exists.) — Cuivi é nen ^{T| C}, Saturday, 13 May 2006 @ 20:56 UTC

2. Oppose Don't like the above response comments. Failure to monitor own RFA. -- Masssiveego 00:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC) reply

   You know there's a problem with RfA when someone gets opposed for not responding to his own RfA opposes then a few noms up, someone gets opposed for responding to his opposes. -- Rory096 05:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC) reply

3. Oppose. As per Ardenn. He has a point that all should ponder over lunch. Anwar 22:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply

   Oh please, what is the world coming to. People opposing with the reason being that they agree with another user who has no reason to oppose (that has been presented anyway). Nobleeagle (Talk) 09:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Neutral

1. Neutral per analysis of this user's distribution of edits. — May. 13, '06 [10:31] < freakofnur_xture | talk>

Comments

• See Joelr31's edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool.

User contributions
--Viewing contribution data for user Joelr31 (over the 3716 edit(s) shown on this page)-- (FAQ)
Time range: 283 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 20hr (UTC) -- 11, May, 2006
Oldest edit on: 23hr (UTC) -- 2, July, 2005
Overall edit summary use: Major edits: 86.5% Minor edits: 95.51%
Article edit summary use: Major article edits: 87.97% Minor article edits: 95.49%
Average edits per day (current): 13.15
Significant article edits (non-minor/reverts): 7.8%
Unique pages edited: 1618 | Average edits per page: 2.3 | Edits on top: 19.46%
Breakdown of edits:
All significant edits (non-minor/reverts): 28.58%
Minor edits (non reverts): 58.67%
Marked reverts: 8.07%
Unmarked edits: 4.68%
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 63.75% | Article talk: 4.09%
User: 5.54% | User talk: 8.32%
Wikipedia: 9.82% | Wikipedia talk: 0.78%
Image: 1.4%
Template: 2.21%
Category: 2.15%
Portal: 1.13%
Help: 0%
MediaWiki: 0%
Other talk pages: 0.67%

• Edit count with Interiot's tool:

Username Joelr31 
Total edits 3416 
User groups user   
Image uploads 32 (32 cur, 0 old) (browse) 
Distinct pages edited 1539 
Edits/page (avg) 2.22 
Avg edits/day 10.94 
Deleted edits 83  
First edit 2005/07/02 23:17:43 

- Total: 3691 -
Main: 2361
Talk: 150
User: 205
User talk: 304
Wikipedia: 361
Wikipedia talk: 29
Image: 52
Image talk: 4
Template: 82
Template talk: 19
Category: 80
Portal: 42
Portal talk: 2

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

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: Even though I am familiar with the many of the policies I will use the administrator privileges with moderation at first. I will start by helping out in less controversial roles such as speedy deletions of articles, speedy renaming of categories, 3RR violations and RC patrolling with the rollback function. I will start by helping close obvious AfD and will then move to other Afds where concensus is not overwhelming. I also plan to help with the PROD backlog and other backlogs from Category:Administrative backlog. I will watch the admin noticeboards and help where I can. When I get more comfortable and gain more experience with the tools I intend to help in any area where I am needed, be it issuing blocks, clearing backlogs or mediations.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: I am very pleased about my Puerto Rican fauna related articles because there was a lack of information in this area. I was particularly surprised when I searched for Coquí, an endemic frog and the greatest symbol of Puerto Rican pride, and found that no article existed. I was amazed. I immediately began researching and writing the article. When finished I made it my goal to cover every endemic species of Puerto Rico. As expected that article, being my first, is not my best work. I have seen written many other articles and have been perfecting my skills. I am particularly pleased of Puerto Rican Spindalis, Elfin-woods Warbler and my latest Yellow-shouldered Blackbird. I am also very pleased about History of Puerto Rico which I helped to elevate to featured status. During the time I spent on that article I learned many things about proper referencing, prose and article structure and I also familiarized myself with policies such as WP:PR, WP:FAC and others.

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: Since I have a substantial amount of edits in main space I have been involved in some editing conflicts in the past. I believe that although inevitable edit conflicts are, for the most part, constructive since you gain som insight into how a topic is conceived in other people's minds. I have been involved in arguments in the Puerto Rican Spindalis article [1], Post-abortion syndrome [2] and other discussions on WP:CFD, WP:Afd and WP:TFD. For the most part I have avoided stress from these issues. The only time I developed stress was when I incorrectly presented a reference in the Post-abortion syndrome talk. I carelessly placed a reference which I thought was the decisive argument toward the classification of the syndrome as pseudoscience. I acted prematurely and did not read the article throughly. The article was in fact about another PAS (parental alienation syndrome) and not about post-abortion syndrome. I felt ashamed that I had acted so carelessly. I have since avoided these careless decisions and will continue to do so in the future. I will continue to maintain civility and will, as I usually do, provide references, citations and logic with which to back my arguments.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.