User:Alex Shih/Jimbo Wales

Jimbo Wales
[ Voice your opinion] (1/18/0); Scheduled to end 04:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

- One of the first editors I have interacted with on English Wikipedia was User:Jimbo Wales. Registered since March 2001 with 3000+ edits, this editor can always been seen in WP:AN/I providing knowledgeable answers to many questions. This editor is highly skilled in mediation, and has demonstrated his ability to maintain neutrality while dealing with responsibilities involving WP:ARBCOM and WP:MEDCOM. In addition, his participation in WP:XfDs in particular WP:CFD are usually consistent with the consensus, an example of excellent understanding of policies. In terms of mainspace contribution, Jimmy is also a prolific writer credited with a WP:GA (Jimmy Wales).

Finally, Jimmy has also shown his communication and interpersonal skills that is evident through his 1200+ edits in talk pages, with 700+ of these edits coming from his own talk page. He has helped both experienced and new editors alike on English Wikipedia, and I have no doubt that he will make an outstanding addition to the already impressive team of editors with the mop. AQu01rius (User &#149; Talk) 04:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. —Jimbo Wales 03:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

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 participants:
 * Questions for the candidate
 * 1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with?
 * A: My main interest would be counter-vandalism. Vandalism is one of the most frustrating experience on English Wikipedia, and I am planning to patrol WP:AIV more often to reduce the backlog. I am also experienced with WP:CSD in general, and I will be taking greater responsibilities in closing many of the outstanding discussions.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A: I am particularly pleased with my contribution to Jimmy Wales, which has remained to be WP:GA all these years. My mainspace contribution are evenly distributed, on occasion I even help out with scripts that makes repetitive and tedious editing easier. My most impressive contribution would be VisualEditor and WP:FLOW, which basically revolutionized the style of editing and discussion on Wikipedia.


 * 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: Having worked in both mediation and arbitration, I have resolved conflicts between different users frequently. Thankfully, I have yet to be involved in major controversies. One of the stressful times was during Essjay controversy in which I felt my trust on my colleagues were shattered, but I regained my composure and resolved the crisis. My philosophy of dealing with stressful situation is to walk away and let somebody else deal with it.


 * General comments
 * See Jimbo Wales's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
 * See Jimbo Wales's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion



Support
 * 1) Support - As the nominator. Good luck! AQu01rius (User &#149; Talk) 04:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Neutral
 * 1) Oppose. per lack of edit summary usage. 50% for minor edits right now. --Looper5920 00:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong Oppose. 3000 edits in a span of six years made me worry about this user's ability to be active. -- Al  e  x  (talk) 02:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose I don't support users with less than 1000 mainspace edits.  Canadian - Bacon  t  c   e 03:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per lack of consistency. Michael 09:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. You are a good contributor, but not yet experienced encough to be considered a serious candidate for adminship. You have currently made 3000 edits - most sucessful admin candidates at present usually have at least 5,000. Also, although you've been around since March 2001, there have been periods of several weeks since then where you have been inactive. Admins are generally expected to check-in almost daily apart from occasional wikibreaks. A period of much more consistent contribution will be needed if a future application for adminship is to have any chnace of success. Good luck if you decide to apply again in the future. Zaxem 10:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose Lack of consistency - I would like to see more activity. --Mcginnly | Natter 11:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose, he's off what appears to be a two-month wikibreak.-- Wizardman 05:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose, all the criticism on the user's talk page is a cause for concern, and I'm concerned that the user may not have enough experience to be familiar with Wikipedia. Will consider supporting if the candidate reapplies after another six years. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Not enough portal talk edits. --Slowking Man 05:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose - per others, 3000 edits is indeed very low for six years of editing. Hbdragon88 05:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose as fails my personal adminship criteria in that: (a) he has never written any encyclopedic content in relation to fruit, (b) he has less than 100 edits to Sandbox Word Association, (c) he has no edits in the Portal talk namespace, (d) his signature is boring. He has also been highly uncivil in not signing a number of users' autograph books despite multiple requests. As such I could not consider supporting this person under any circumstances until next Thursday lunchtime. WjBscribe 05:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose Your AfD stats are okay, though you haven't participated in any debates since 2015, and even that one Articles for deletion/June Swann closed as "snow keep" which will probably lead people to suspect you aren't familiar with WP:BEFORE and oppose accordingly. I think you'll probably pass the content bar with your work on improving and sourcing British peers, though it would be worth checking articles you've contributed to such as Alan Campbell, Baron Campbell of Alloway and making sure it's all sourced properly. I think your big problem though is you spend too much time chit-chatting on your user talk page, with only two article space edits since 24 May, and I think that's going to be a deal breaker for most of the RfA crowd who prefer to see candidates that understand Wikipedia isn't a social network. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  12:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose Well, that's the correlation I got when I compared the number of edits made annually since 2011 to the total number of Rfas since the same year till date. While your edit count is significantly low, I believe editors would still support your nomination for the effort you've taken till date to assist the project in whichever way you can; although I can see the naysayers pointing to your reducing time on the project due to other valid business interests.  Lourdes  14:37, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose Clearly WP:NOTHERE: per ... &mdash;  fortuna  velut luna  16:47, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose I've always been suspicious this Jimbo Wales is just another Pastor Theo sock. I hear people have seen him in person ... but then he vanishes, off to see Tony Blair (!) or something else unlikely. Are we sure it's not some guy in disguise?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:02, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose thinks an Amazon sales page is a reliable source. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * 17) Oppose: big talk, small work. Always discusses huge things on talkpages, or edit summaries, but contributions are contrary. Tries to show himself as an intellectual i think. — usernamekiran (talk)  12:42, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * 18) 100? User has exactly 100 centijimbos? Suspicious. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:47, 11 August 2017 (UTC)