Ohnoitsjamie (
talk·contribs) – Ohnoitsjamie has contributed greatly to Wikipedia since October 2005, and he has helped to revert vandalism and participated in AFD discussions. He now has almost
10000 edits, and he uses edit summaries well and communicates with other users frequently, and so is very unlikely to abuse admin tools. On his last unsuccessful
RfA, others have suggested that more time on the project could help, and now he has it.
King of♥♦♣♠ 17:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)reply
I would like to co-nominate Ohnoitsjamie. Aside from the edit summary usage, he is always polite and genial in his interactions with others, regardless of the situation he is put under by often disgruntled spammers or suspect autobiographers and the like. He has been around longer than six months, and since I became an admin, he has kept me busy on AIV and CSD quite a lot through his work on NPP and RCP. Also, his AfD contributions show a dedication to debate, rather than straight voting, which tells us that he would preside over AfD debates with a good degree of wisdom, which is needed in non-clear cut cases. Blnguyen |
rant-line 00:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC).reply
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination, and thank King of Hearts and Blnguyen for the votes of confidence. OhNoitsJamieTalk 04:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Support
OhNoitsaSupport, user has shown a great deal of improvement from his first RfA. He shows increased familiarity with Wikipedia policies, and a willingness to take on maintenance tasks. I opposed last time, but am pleased to offer my support now. --
Deathphoenixʕ 20:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Support and I like this guy. Haven't seen him around, but that's probably because I haven't been vandalising and spamming. :) He makes good use of edit summaries, warns vandals and spammers consistently, and I see that he has defused several situations where irate spammers questioned his reverts. See
this for example. Aguerriero (
talk) 20:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Support per nom and co-nom.
Kimchi.sg 20:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Support, doing good stuff, will do better stuff with tools.
bd2412T 20:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong support. looks good from here.--
KungfuAdam(
talk) 20:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong support. In fact, I had already offered Jamie to nominate him a few weeks ago, and he preferred to be patient and give it more time. My interactions with him have demonstrated me his top-notch personal quality and his talent as an editor. A true asset to the project.
Phædriel♥tell me - 21:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Support; I've had excellent experiences working with him, and greatly appreciate his efforts at keeping town and city articles NPOV, even in the face of determined and unreasonable opposition. Definitely needs admin tools.
Antandrus (talk) 21:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong Support. God yes, this user is by far one of our best. Adminship is threefold: janitor duties, setting an example, and playing a role in the site's evolution. I'm sure this user will balance all three. — Deckiller 21:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. -- Very good editor - will make an excellent admin. --
No Guru 21:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Very satisfactorily meets my
admin criteria. Great behind-the-scenes contribution.
Grandmasterka 21:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Cliche Support ON WHEELS!!! Thought for sure he was an admin, and surprised he's relatively new around here. Good choice though. Will become dangerous with vandal tools. --
D-DayI'm all earsHow can I improve? 21:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)reply
OhNoKingOfHeartsIsSupportingAsANominatorOnWheels! --
King of♥♦♣♠ 21:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Support long time user, looks busy with tackling vandalism. Seems suitable for the job.--Andeh 21:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Twice edit conflicted Strong Support - seems to be a great user who would further help Wikipedia with the extra tools
hoopydinkConas tá tú? 21:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Looking at his edits gives me the impression that he's likely to be more "productive" with buttons than without them. Having a sense of humour is an additional advantage. Good luck. --
Vildricianus 21:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Support That's a lot of project edits. -
Goldom‽‽‽⁂ 21:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Supporting My favourite AIV regular :) -
Obli (
Talk)? 22:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Support per nominations and civility on talk page. Seems to ruffle a few feathers with linkspammers, which is good -- sometimes, feathers need to be ruffled. --
Elkman 22:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Support, but sig could be smaller. I suggest making the "itsJamie" link to the talk, which would take out almost half a line. If you don't want to, then at least make it be "<b>[[User:Ohnoitsjamie|OhNo<font color="#D47C14">itsJamie</font>]] [[User talk:Ohnoitsjamie|<sup>Talk</sup>]]</b>," (OhNoitsJamieTalk) which is the same exact thing but half a line shorter, putting it onto one line. --
Rory096 23:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)reply
More candidates like this one please!™ Support++Lar:
t/
c 23:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Invokes cliché #1. RadioKirk (
u|
t|
c) 23:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Support a great wikipedian —Mets501 (
talk) 23:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong support great vandal fighter. —Khoikhoi 23:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Support about time. A wise and dedicated user who understands what is needed to fight vandals and improve Wikipedia.
Gwernol 23:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)reply
I'll have to Support this one. ~Kylu (
u|
t) 23:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong Support - utterly patient and polite with even the oddest of characters. He is a model of how to respectfully deal with all editors and still clean up inappropriate additions.
Kurutalk 23:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Good editor, deserves the promotion.
DVD+
R/W 00:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Though I've never dealth with this editor in person, I have only heard tales of patience and wisdom.
RyanGerbil10(Drop on in!) 00:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. The number of edits outweighs my 'a year of experience' concerns.
SushiGeek 01:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong Support Excellent user, see above comments.
Eluchil404 01:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Much improved in editing from last RFA. Yes.
NSLE 01:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Support, absolutely. Deiziotalk 01:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. We need more people helping out with these admin backlogs.
RoyA.
A. 02:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Support - per Tawker's Support Criteria and all above --
Tawker 03:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong Support Very civil and helpful user; seen him around and was impressed. <insert evil RFA cliches here>. He even let me design his userpage. :DMaster of PuppetsGiant Enemy Crab! 03:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Support per most of above. --
HResearcher 04:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. An experienced, dedicated editor.
Zaxem 04:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. I keep bumping into his trail. Leaves good tracks.
Shenme 05:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong Support excellent vandal fighter and good editor
abakharev 05:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Definite Support I've seen this user editting around. Will make a great admin. Passes my RFA criteria.
Anonymous__Anonymous 09:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Support Little doubt that this person would be handy with a mop and bucket. (aeropagitica) (talk) 12:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. per nom
Anger22 18:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Excellent and trustworthy editor.
Xoloz 18:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Support Per reasons stated above & excellent answers given below. --
Srikeit(
Talk |
Email) 19:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Support --
Jay(
Reply) 03:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Support I like the edit count :-), to me it shows he'd dedicated. That, and he didn't leave even when he got blocked.
MichaelBillington 04:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Support Great user and will make good use of the tools.
TigerShark 09:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Support per nomination --
Mhking 22:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)reply
OMG I'm late so sorry! Support How did I miss this for so long? Of course he deserves it. Wonderful editior, does good things in stressful situations. I whole-heartedly support.
pschemp |
talk 02:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Excellent user. —
TheKMantalk 16:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Support, good confidence in this person to be an administrator.
Yamaguchi先生 18:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Support, was going to nom a little while ago myself. (
ESkog)(
Talk) 21:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Pile on support! per both noms, answers to questions....is there a reason this user shouldn't have a mop?--
The ikiroid (
talk·
desk·
Advise me) 21:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong Support. As It mentioned above, I should support him to be admin because He demonstrates kindness, and being nice in Wikipedia.
*~Daniel~* 02:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)reply
We need more admin mediators.
Ashibakatock 04:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Support Will use the tools well. --
Alfmelmac 07:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Support Experienced and constructive editor --
Brownlee 12:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Support per nominator.
Polonium 19:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose
Neutral
Comments
Consider using the minor edit marker. Mathbot went through like 5000 edits before finding 150 minor ones. - CrazyRussiantalk/
email 22:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Life is ironic. On his last rfa, he was opposed by some for marking "all" his edits "minor." Probly the 150 minor edits in last 5000 edits is actually a correct indication? --
Gurubrahma 07:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)reply
I need to get in the habit of marking vandalism reverts and spam removals as minor. OhNoitsJamieTalk 00:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)reply
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:
A: My major focus on Wikipedia is maintaining its overall quality. I revert a lot of vandalism, quickly, and followup with warnings or
WP:AIV listings when appropriate. I clean up link spam (and occasionally discuss the
WP:SPAM policies with well-meaning editors). I occasionally clean up articles (adding templateboxes, categories, wikifying, spelling, grammar, wording) and ensure that
WP:NPOV guidelines are followed. As an admin, I'd be able to more efficiently deal with persistent vandals and spammers via blocks. I'd check the
list of speedy deletion candidates list periodically and delete articles/images if appropriate. I'd (conservatively) semi-protect pages when necessary, and unprotect them in a reasonable amount of time. I'd keep an eye on the
admin's noticeboard and assist in
afd closures. I'd like to get more involved with policy discussions and proposals (for now, I do my best to abide by existing policies and guidelines).
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: While there have been a few articles that I've brought out from stub status or otherwise cleaned up
Mike_Aguirre,
Montour_Trail, I don't think any of those efforts are worth bragging about. I like to think that my biggest contribution is my dedication to maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia, following its policies and guidelines, and maintaining a strictly neutral stance on issues. I don't have any infoboxes on my userpage indicating philosophies, ideologies, etc.; it's my goal that you shouldn't be able to discern any personal philosophies via my edits. I'm equally happy to revert vandalism and or NPOV content at
Ann Coulter or to
Bill Clinton. There are frequently situations where NPOV is quite difficult establish; when I've been involved in NPOV conflicts or mediation, I can maintain a cool head and am amenable changing my mind if good arguments are presented. It's not unusual for me to change my stance on an AFD if good arguments are put forth. While my vandalism-approach tends to be fast and business-like, I will try to work with new users who are obviously trying to make good-faith contributions but whose efforts are uninformed.
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:Receiving a block for a 3RR was my most stressful moment at Wikipedia. While it was only for three hours, I felt that it was unjustified and was upset about the prospect of it appearing on my "permanent record." It felt like a slap-in-the face after many many hours of diligent work on a project I really cared about; I briefly considered leaving Wikipedia, but decided ultimately that it was not worth losing sleep over (it also helped that several other fellow editors came to my defense without being asked to). Other than that, I generally don't get too stressed about disputes. It can be frustrating to get stuck in NPOV battles where the two sides dig into intractable positions, but that situations can usually be ameliorated by getting other non-partisan parties involved.
Through watching the talk pages of friends who became admins in the last year, I can see that the execution of administrative duties is bound to bring more complaints to an admin's talkpage, as many decisions are not black-and-white and are bound to create discord. I'm confident that I can keep my cool in such situations; I can comfortably stand by my positions if I'm reasonabley confident in their basis, but I'm not so stubborn that I'm unwilling to yield in the face of good arguments.
Optional Questions from
Nobleeagle (Talk)Q: What part of Wikipedia do you dislike the most or feel most frustrated with in your time here thus far (this can be a user, type of user, policy, restriction etc.)? Have you tried to overcome these and would adminship make life any easier for you?
I don't have any major problems with the way Wikipedia currently operates. Sometimes it's frustrating to deal with serial vandalism from anonymous IPs; especially AOL proxies and schools. I know some people are reluctant to block school IPs, but I wonder if a long block might prompt officials at the school to do something about the problem. (In one severe case, I contacted the network admin at a school where a lot of vandalism and disruption was emanating from; the problem stopped the next day).
Handling
undue weight issues on controversial articles can be tiring, but that's inevitable. OhNoitsJamieTalk 00:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Q: Above you can see a number of statistics about your edits. Do you consider any of these important? Which do you consider most important?
It was fun to hit the 10k mark (kind of like watching the speedometer roll over on an old car), but I don't focus on those numbers too much. Obviously, a lot of the article and user talk edits are vandalism reverts and warnings. I'd like to boost my Wikipedia namespace numbers a bit. And what was my one category edit? OhNoitsJamieTalk 00:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Q: Lastly, do you have any criteria when voting in RFAs? If so please present them, if not then it doesn't matter.
I look for at least 6 months or so of activity, and more importantly, evidence that the individual demonstrates a strong working knowledge of "the ropes." I look for level-headed and friendly discussions on the users talk page to confirm that the user is reasonably nice and civil. If other editors voice concerns in the oppose section, I consider those arguments as well. OhNoitsJamieTalk 00:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)reply
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either
this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Ohnoitsjamie (
talk·contribs) – Ohnoitsjamie has contributed greatly to Wikipedia since October 2005, and he has helped to revert vandalism and participated in AFD discussions. He now has almost
10000 edits, and he uses edit summaries well and communicates with other users frequently, and so is very unlikely to abuse admin tools. On his last unsuccessful
RfA, others have suggested that more time on the project could help, and now he has it.
King of♥♦♣♠ 17:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)reply
I would like to co-nominate Ohnoitsjamie. Aside from the edit summary usage, he is always polite and genial in his interactions with others, regardless of the situation he is put under by often disgruntled spammers or suspect autobiographers and the like. He has been around longer than six months, and since I became an admin, he has kept me busy on AIV and CSD quite a lot through his work on NPP and RCP. Also, his AfD contributions show a dedication to debate, rather than straight voting, which tells us that he would preside over AfD debates with a good degree of wisdom, which is needed in non-clear cut cases. Blnguyen |
rant-line 00:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC).reply
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination, and thank King of Hearts and Blnguyen for the votes of confidence. OhNoitsJamieTalk 04:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Support
OhNoitsaSupport, user has shown a great deal of improvement from his first RfA. He shows increased familiarity with Wikipedia policies, and a willingness to take on maintenance tasks. I opposed last time, but am pleased to offer my support now. --
Deathphoenixʕ 20:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Support and I like this guy. Haven't seen him around, but that's probably because I haven't been vandalising and spamming. :) He makes good use of edit summaries, warns vandals and spammers consistently, and I see that he has defused several situations where irate spammers questioned his reverts. See
this for example. Aguerriero (
talk) 20:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Support per nom and co-nom.
Kimchi.sg 20:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Support, doing good stuff, will do better stuff with tools.
bd2412T 20:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong support. looks good from here.--
KungfuAdam(
talk) 20:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong support. In fact, I had already offered Jamie to nominate him a few weeks ago, and he preferred to be patient and give it more time. My interactions with him have demonstrated me his top-notch personal quality and his talent as an editor. A true asset to the project.
Phædriel♥tell me - 21:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Support; I've had excellent experiences working with him, and greatly appreciate his efforts at keeping town and city articles NPOV, even in the face of determined and unreasonable opposition. Definitely needs admin tools.
Antandrus (talk) 21:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong Support. God yes, this user is by far one of our best. Adminship is threefold: janitor duties, setting an example, and playing a role in the site's evolution. I'm sure this user will balance all three. — Deckiller 21:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. -- Very good editor - will make an excellent admin. --
No Guru 21:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Very satisfactorily meets my
admin criteria. Great behind-the-scenes contribution.
Grandmasterka 21:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Cliche Support ON WHEELS!!! Thought for sure he was an admin, and surprised he's relatively new around here. Good choice though. Will become dangerous with vandal tools. --
D-DayI'm all earsHow can I improve? 21:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)reply
OhNoKingOfHeartsIsSupportingAsANominatorOnWheels! --
King of♥♦♣♠ 21:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Support long time user, looks busy with tackling vandalism. Seems suitable for the job.--Andeh 21:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Twice edit conflicted Strong Support - seems to be a great user who would further help Wikipedia with the extra tools
hoopydinkConas tá tú? 21:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Looking at his edits gives me the impression that he's likely to be more "productive" with buttons than without them. Having a sense of humour is an additional advantage. Good luck. --
Vildricianus 21:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Support That's a lot of project edits. -
Goldom‽‽‽⁂ 21:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Supporting My favourite AIV regular :) -
Obli (
Talk)? 22:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Support per nominations and civility on talk page. Seems to ruffle a few feathers with linkspammers, which is good -- sometimes, feathers need to be ruffled. --
Elkman 22:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Support, but sig could be smaller. I suggest making the "itsJamie" link to the talk, which would take out almost half a line. If you don't want to, then at least make it be "<b>[[User:Ohnoitsjamie|OhNo<font color="#D47C14">itsJamie</font>]] [[User talk:Ohnoitsjamie|<sup>Talk</sup>]]</b>," (OhNoitsJamieTalk) which is the same exact thing but half a line shorter, putting it onto one line. --
Rory096 23:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)reply
More candidates like this one please!™ Support++Lar:
t/
c 23:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Invokes cliché #1. RadioKirk (
u|
t|
c) 23:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Support a great wikipedian —Mets501 (
talk) 23:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong support great vandal fighter. —Khoikhoi 23:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Support about time. A wise and dedicated user who understands what is needed to fight vandals and improve Wikipedia.
Gwernol 23:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)reply
I'll have to Support this one. ~Kylu (
u|
t) 23:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong Support - utterly patient and polite with even the oddest of characters. He is a model of how to respectfully deal with all editors and still clean up inappropriate additions.
Kurutalk 23:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Good editor, deserves the promotion.
DVD+
R/W 00:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Though I've never dealth with this editor in person, I have only heard tales of patience and wisdom.
RyanGerbil10(Drop on in!) 00:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. The number of edits outweighs my 'a year of experience' concerns.
SushiGeek 01:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong Support Excellent user, see above comments.
Eluchil404 01:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Much improved in editing from last RFA. Yes.
NSLE 01:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Support, absolutely. Deiziotalk 01:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. We need more people helping out with these admin backlogs.
RoyA.
A. 02:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Support - per Tawker's Support Criteria and all above --
Tawker 03:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong Support Very civil and helpful user; seen him around and was impressed. <insert evil RFA cliches here>. He even let me design his userpage. :DMaster of PuppetsGiant Enemy Crab! 03:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Support per most of above. --
HResearcher 04:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. An experienced, dedicated editor.
Zaxem 04:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. I keep bumping into his trail. Leaves good tracks.
Shenme 05:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong Support excellent vandal fighter and good editor
abakharev 05:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Definite Support I've seen this user editting around. Will make a great admin. Passes my RFA criteria.
Anonymous__Anonymous 09:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Support Little doubt that this person would be handy with a mop and bucket. (aeropagitica) (talk) 12:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. per nom
Anger22 18:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Excellent and trustworthy editor.
Xoloz 18:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Support Per reasons stated above & excellent answers given below. --
Srikeit(
Talk |
Email) 19:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Support --
Jay(
Reply) 03:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Support I like the edit count :-), to me it shows he'd dedicated. That, and he didn't leave even when he got blocked.
MichaelBillington 04:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Support Great user and will make good use of the tools.
TigerShark 09:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Support per nomination --
Mhking 22:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)reply
OMG I'm late so sorry! Support How did I miss this for so long? Of course he deserves it. Wonderful editior, does good things in stressful situations. I whole-heartedly support.
pschemp |
talk 02:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Excellent user. —
TheKMantalk 16:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Support, good confidence in this person to be an administrator.
Yamaguchi先生 18:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Support, was going to nom a little while ago myself. (
ESkog)(
Talk) 21:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Pile on support! per both noms, answers to questions....is there a reason this user shouldn't have a mop?--
The ikiroid (
talk·
desk·
Advise me) 21:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong Support. As It mentioned above, I should support him to be admin because He demonstrates kindness, and being nice in Wikipedia.
*~Daniel~* 02:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)reply
We need more admin mediators.
Ashibakatock 04:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Support Will use the tools well. --
Alfmelmac 07:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Support Experienced and constructive editor --
Brownlee 12:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Support per nominator.
Polonium 19:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose
Neutral
Comments
Consider using the minor edit marker. Mathbot went through like 5000 edits before finding 150 minor ones. - CrazyRussiantalk/
email 22:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Life is ironic. On his last rfa, he was opposed by some for marking "all" his edits "minor." Probly the 150 minor edits in last 5000 edits is actually a correct indication? --
Gurubrahma 07:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)reply
I need to get in the habit of marking vandalism reverts and spam removals as minor. OhNoitsJamieTalk 00:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)reply
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:
A: My major focus on Wikipedia is maintaining its overall quality. I revert a lot of vandalism, quickly, and followup with warnings or
WP:AIV listings when appropriate. I clean up link spam (and occasionally discuss the
WP:SPAM policies with well-meaning editors). I occasionally clean up articles (adding templateboxes, categories, wikifying, spelling, grammar, wording) and ensure that
WP:NPOV guidelines are followed. As an admin, I'd be able to more efficiently deal with persistent vandals and spammers via blocks. I'd check the
list of speedy deletion candidates list periodically and delete articles/images if appropriate. I'd (conservatively) semi-protect pages when necessary, and unprotect them in a reasonable amount of time. I'd keep an eye on the
admin's noticeboard and assist in
afd closures. I'd like to get more involved with policy discussions and proposals (for now, I do my best to abide by existing policies and guidelines).
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: While there have been a few articles that I've brought out from stub status or otherwise cleaned up
Mike_Aguirre,
Montour_Trail, I don't think any of those efforts are worth bragging about. I like to think that my biggest contribution is my dedication to maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia, following its policies and guidelines, and maintaining a strictly neutral stance on issues. I don't have any infoboxes on my userpage indicating philosophies, ideologies, etc.; it's my goal that you shouldn't be able to discern any personal philosophies via my edits. I'm equally happy to revert vandalism and or NPOV content at
Ann Coulter or to
Bill Clinton. There are frequently situations where NPOV is quite difficult establish; when I've been involved in NPOV conflicts or mediation, I can maintain a cool head and am amenable changing my mind if good arguments are presented. It's not unusual for me to change my stance on an AFD if good arguments are put forth. While my vandalism-approach tends to be fast and business-like, I will try to work with new users who are obviously trying to make good-faith contributions but whose efforts are uninformed.
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:Receiving a block for a 3RR was my most stressful moment at Wikipedia. While it was only for three hours, I felt that it was unjustified and was upset about the prospect of it appearing on my "permanent record." It felt like a slap-in-the face after many many hours of diligent work on a project I really cared about; I briefly considered leaving Wikipedia, but decided ultimately that it was not worth losing sleep over (it also helped that several other fellow editors came to my defense without being asked to). Other than that, I generally don't get too stressed about disputes. It can be frustrating to get stuck in NPOV battles where the two sides dig into intractable positions, but that situations can usually be ameliorated by getting other non-partisan parties involved.
Through watching the talk pages of friends who became admins in the last year, I can see that the execution of administrative duties is bound to bring more complaints to an admin's talkpage, as many decisions are not black-and-white and are bound to create discord. I'm confident that I can keep my cool in such situations; I can comfortably stand by my positions if I'm reasonabley confident in their basis, but I'm not so stubborn that I'm unwilling to yield in the face of good arguments.
Optional Questions from
Nobleeagle (Talk)Q: What part of Wikipedia do you dislike the most or feel most frustrated with in your time here thus far (this can be a user, type of user, policy, restriction etc.)? Have you tried to overcome these and would adminship make life any easier for you?
I don't have any major problems with the way Wikipedia currently operates. Sometimes it's frustrating to deal with serial vandalism from anonymous IPs; especially AOL proxies and schools. I know some people are reluctant to block school IPs, but I wonder if a long block might prompt officials at the school to do something about the problem. (In one severe case, I contacted the network admin at a school where a lot of vandalism and disruption was emanating from; the problem stopped the next day).
Handling
undue weight issues on controversial articles can be tiring, but that's inevitable. OhNoitsJamieTalk 00:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Q: Above you can see a number of statistics about your edits. Do you consider any of these important? Which do you consider most important?
It was fun to hit the 10k mark (kind of like watching the speedometer roll over on an old car), but I don't focus on those numbers too much. Obviously, a lot of the article and user talk edits are vandalism reverts and warnings. I'd like to boost my Wikipedia namespace numbers a bit. And what was my one category edit? OhNoitsJamieTalk 00:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Q: Lastly, do you have any criteria when voting in RFAs? If so please present them, if not then it doesn't matter.
I look for at least 6 months or so of activity, and more importantly, evidence that the individual demonstrates a strong working knowledge of "the ropes." I look for level-headed and friendly discussions on the users talk page to confirm that the user is reasonably nice and civil. If other editors voice concerns in the oppose section, I consider those arguments as well. OhNoitsJamieTalk 00:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)reply
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either
this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.