The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for bureaucratship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Jtkiefer

final (3/20/3) ending 18:07 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Jtkiefer ( talk · contribs · count)

I'm Jtkiefer and I'm been a Wikipedia editor since May, 2005. I have also been an administrator since August, 2005. I have contributed to almost every aspect of Wikipedia and am well versed in all it's rules and regulations as well as how Wikipedia flows and how things work.

I think that Wikipedia needs more bureaucrat to increase coverage on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship not only to close and promote or close and delist nominations but also to act us a group that the community trusts that a closing bureaucrat can consult with if they are unsure about a nomination. Needless to say that the weight of the decision still falls on the closing bureaucrat but in most of the bureaucratic noms I have seen the candidate has stated that they would discuss a controversial nom with other bureaucrats if needed. I also feel that with the rising number of adminship requests and the number of users we need more bureaucrats so that we have total coverage of both the name change request board and of the RFA page as to reduce any lag time there may be between a request and a bureaucrat actually being able to fulfill that request. Jtkiefer ^{T | C | @} ---- 19:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Support

1. Support freestylefrappe 19:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply

   Hi, could you explain your edit summary ("since im only allowed to vote in support")? Why are you only allowed to vote in support? Talrias ( t | e | c) 19:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply

   I think the explanation, together with the context, can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Immidiate attention needed: User:Freestylefrappe and User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson. -- cesarb 22:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply

   And if you must, see Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Loss of patience. He's trying to make a point. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply

2. King of All the Franks 20:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Support Seems like a nice fellow-- Piedras grandes 15:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose

1. After seeing the last two attempts, I must oppose. Jonathunder 18:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Sorry Jtkiefer, I think you are a great guy and a good Wikipedian, but this is your third RFB and you set it up just over 20 minutes after you withdrew from the Arbitration Committee election. It just seems like status-seeking to me. I also think you should make a better statement as to why you are seeking bureaucratship - why should you be a bureaucrat and why does Wikipedia need you as a bureaucrat? Talrias ( t | e | c) 18:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
3. I feel Jtkiefer can often be impolite and overly aggressive with his comments. While I value most of Jtkiefer's contributions, it is not false to say that we don't need more bureaucrats. That in itself is not a grounds for opposition, but a lack of certainty as to his appropriateness alongside it is. I also think it unnecessary that he has applied for bureaucrat for a third time, given the small numbers needed. It seems to me that he regards being a bureaucrat as more of an award for good service than a position where he can do most good. Finally, that statement seems rude and does not give any reasons why we should support him. [[Sam Korn]] 18:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC) (double edit conflict) reply
4. Oppose Too impatient, give it some time -- Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Oppose same reasons as I gave last time ( Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Jtkiefer 2), plus I am now starting to wonder (as apparently others are) why getting some additional role seems so important to this user. Give it more time, wait till lots of people are clamoring for you to nominate yourself on your talk page. ++ Lar: t/ c 18:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Oppose. Per above oppose votes. The previous request was just a month ago, I'm not sure what the hurry is. Carbonite | Talk 19:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
7. Oppose. See Redux's nom. Also, seeing JT up here so soon, for the 3rd time, reflects a lack of patience, IMO. Great guy though. Voice of All ^{T| @| ESP} 20:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
8. Oppose, per everything above, and that fiasco with the fair use images a few weeks ago. I've come to realize that the intentions were very justified, but the method was wrong. And although the real diference between an admin and a bureucrat is the ability to promote others to be admins...still, between all of these, my votes negative.-- HereToHelp ( talk) 01:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
9. Oppose as above. Once again, I am not convinced we need more. enochlau ( talk) 10:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
10. Oppose, nominating yourself for many things in a short amount of time (such as bureaucratship and the ArbCom) is not a good sign. R adiant _>|< 10:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    You're supposed to nominate yourself for bureaucrat. WikiFanatic 02:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    • I'm not objecting to the fact that he self-nominates, but the fact that he self-nominates multiple times in a short timespan. What's the rush? R adiant _>|< 13:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply

11. Oppose, harsh, overly controlling and bad tempered. -- Masssiveego 10:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Wow, I might actually agree with the new boothy. Look at this [1], what gives? Voice of All ^{T| @| ESP} 17:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply

12. A great admin, but this needs more time, I fear. Johnleemk | Talk 14:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
13. Strong Oppose Very odd timing for a third nomination. Must now question editor's judgment. Xoloz 17:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
14. Oppose on the basis of seemingly over-eager (re-)renomination, and the unfortunate combination of weakness and vehemence of the "need more 'crats" arguments offered. Alai 19:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
15. Oppose. I looked thru several thousand of user contribs. The vast majority is semi-'bot edits ("AWB assisted clean up", "re-categorisation per CFD", etc.) and user talk pages. I fail to see how the self-nominator can prove that he (a) knows the policies and what is more important (b) intends to follow them. It is not at all clear how the nominator will behave in cases that require a real decision, rather than simply counting votes. Mukadderat 23:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
16. I'm afraid this isn't the best time so soon after your last one. NSL E _{( T+ C)} 05:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
17. Oppose per Xoloz, NSLE, Alai, and others. WikiFanatic 02:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
18. Oppose per my rationale from the last three recent RfBs. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
19. Oppose as per Xoloz. Sarah Ewart 11:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
20. I can understand the other users' apprehensions. Oppose. Mike H. That's hot 04:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Neutral

1. Neutral I have a 1 year voting requirement for Bureaucrat noms. xaosflux ^Talk/ _CVU 04:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Neutral I've seen Jtkiefer around Wikipedia a lot and he is a very trusty admin, but I have a few problems with his RfB. First of all, this is his 3rd self-nom in two months, and, second of all, he has been at Wikipedia less than a year. Other than that, I would vote in support for him. -- M @ th wiz 2020 02:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Neutral - while I have never come across the user and would feel guilty opposing the RfB, from the record does not seem a worthy recepient of the title. Just take a step back from it all. I am a regular user, not an admin or anything else, and I have no objections. haz ( user talk) 20:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Comments

• See also first request, second request. Talrias ( t | e | c) 18:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• I'm not convinced we need more bureacrats? Avriette 20:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?

A. I have read the discussions many times and keep up with all the changes on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship so that I can always keep on top of current consensus on RFA related issues.

2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?

A. I would use my judgment in conjunction with discussion with my fellow bureaucrats if I felt that discussion was necessary but in the end I accept that I would be responsible for the final decision that I made.

3. Wikipedians expect Bureaucrats to adhere to high standards of fairness, knowledge of policy and the ability to engage others in the community. Why do you feel you meet those standards?

A. I meet this standard because I hold myself to high standards and have always been polite to other users. I pride myself on being civil to other editors even if a situation becomes heated and am always willing to apologize to another person if I am wrong.

4. If you become a bureaucrat, will you pledge not to discuss promotion or non-promotion of potential admins on IRC or any other forum during the course of nominations and especially when making a decision? And to discuss issues of promotion or non-promotion only with other bureaucrats, in their talk, where such discussion would be transparent?

A. Yes, I believe in transparency in RFA processes.

5. Do you have the time and do you have the desire to visit WP:RFA on a regular basis to see to the promotion or delisting of candidates in a timely manner?

A. I have both the time and the desire and I visit both the RFA page and it's talk page several times each day so that I always am aware of what is going on.

6. Would you support or oppose banning User:OceanSplash for a year or more? freestylefrappe 20:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply

A. Neither since neither is necessary as Oceansplash is currently indefinitely banned and no admin has seen fit to undo that ban. Jtkiefer ^{T | C | @} ---- 21:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.