User talk:Jc37/Archive/RfA/01

Your rfa
Hi there - I've posted a question on your RfA - perhaps you would like to reply? --Mcginnly | Natter 08:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure : ) - jc37 08:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

E-mail
This is a question for your RfA in general: Do you have E-mail activated? Could you reply on my talk page please. Thanks -- Lego@lost Rocks Collide! | 20:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If you mean activated for other users, no, I didn't, I do now : ) - jc37 20:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

 * Thanks for answering! -- Lego@lost Rocks Collide! | 21:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Not a problem : ) - jc37 01:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Point values
Out of curiosity (if you don't mind my asking), which of your 16 points did I receive? - jc37 01:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Um lets see.. hold on a minute... -- Lego@lost Rocks Collide! | 01:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I've seemed to updated it since your i did your RfA, I do a new one for you and tel you what you received. Might take 5 minutes -- Lego@lost Rocks Collide! | 01:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I've got it, your new score is 17, this is how you scored: This table is under Wikiright, a new type of right, only users of wikipedia can use my scoring chart. Hope that helps! :) -- Lego@lost Rocks Collide! | 01:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 1 -- for good Grammar & Spelling
 * 2 -- for 95% edit summaries
 * 3 -- for civility
 * 3 -- for 6 months+
 * 2 -- for In 1 project
 * 1 -- for E-Mail
 * 1 -- for good answers to questions
 * 2 -- for 2000+ edits

Yes, it does, actually, thank you.

Seeing how I am merely 3 points from going from a neutral to a support, was there anything "borderline" that I might be able to explain, or help point out difs with? - jc37 01:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes there is in fact. You could explain to me more clearly have you or haven't you had any edit conflicts or warring? To make it simple, yes of no.

Yes, I presume you might call them that : ) For example: WP:DENY - there have been issues over whether it should be a guideline yet. Eventually I started a new page for discussing it, in order to hopefully slowdown/stop the tag reversion warring. There was also a discussion that I was the "third party" discussing the islamic Barnstar. Right now I started a talk page discussion about Darth vader being an icon of evil : )

I've also been involved in the ongoing userbox discussions. - jc37 02:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

And, how much vandal fighting do you do (none, a bit, some, or a lot)?
 * I'm not certain exactly what you might call "vandal fighting". I do a lot of watching for vandalism of on "recent changes". And I have several hundred pages on my watch list that I check several times daily. I'm also fairly well versed in the various noticeboards, etc. - jc37 02:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

So, theoretically, you could score a maximum of 24 points. -- Lego@lost Rocks Collide! 01:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think I'm going to stick with neutral, except with 19 points, there's just some deep feeling, it's really odd. Hope your RfA passes though :-) -- Lego@lost Rocks Collide! 03:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * No worries. Thank you for taking the time to discuss it. Oh, and even though it's a single point difference and still neutral, if you wouldn't mind updating the numeric value on the RfA page... : )
 * Thanks again : ) - jc37 03:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Will do... :) -- Lego@lost Rocks Collide! 03:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Abstain
My concern is just that the discussion/attempt at clarification somehow may have "chased you away". I hope not. My response was in no way an attack on your choice of "oppose", and you are obviously welcome to continue to express that opinion on the RfA (with or without my permission : )

In any case, Have a great day : ) - jc37 08:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I somehow misunderstood the answer to question 4 in your RfA. My first impression is that blocks may be handed out arbitarily without much careful consideration ("it depends on situation...cooling down blocks", which is why I quoted the Giano incident), but then looking at the question again twice with the clarification... ;) Well I do also believe that editors should be treated equally (including administrators), as well as following of process, so I have no further reason to object your RfA. If you don't mind, I would say that things would be a lot more better for your RfA if you had worded them better. - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 09:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * My intent was straight-forward "simple" answers. (I'm typically known for the "long" answer : )
 * Apparently, for you, they didn't come across "straight-forward" - Before I think about tackling the task, how would you suggest I clarify my answer? - jc37 09:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC),


 * I believe some other Wikipedians don't think as "simple", either. I'd prefered if you have never mentioned about "cooling down blocks" and "it depends" in the first place, because these terms are extremely vague terms and does not give editors any form of confidence or assurance on how you would use your mop and bucket should you be given one. I don't look out for lengthy answers, but I do look out for accurate, concise wording. Oh, and it's a traditional taboo for a long, long time not to "advertise" RfAs. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 18:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Why shouldn't he (he?) call upon people who are familiar with his contributions to look at his RfA? Jc37 didn't ask anyone to vote for or against. He notified some people who are familiar with his work. Frankly, if anyone who contributes regularly to the same kind of pages I do applied for adminship without notifying those of us who'd be most affected, I'd resent it. I found it weird to see a page full of comments from people who didn't seem to know much or anything about his past work. Wryspy 20:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * First, Thank you for your thoughts MD. I'd appreciate any further thoughts you might have, as well. (I have answered some other questions about blocking, so feel free to let me know if these still do not suffice).


 * Second, thank you for your comments Wryspy. There have been so many good things said (by you and others), I've been almost embarrassed to read them.

As for the accusation of "advertising"... I think any attempt to explain it in the RfA would likely not be a good idea. It's better, I think to allow for whatever criteria a person may have. The criteria doesn't have to be about policy. RfA is essentially about trust, and whether each individual feels that I should be trusted with "the mop". So, to me, it's like asking a poker player what's lucky for him... However, there were some accusations that I was violating (or coming close to violating) "policy". I don't believe I did, or was. Ignoring that it goes on around here a "lot" (through many various methods), for the moment, and instead, dealing with the question directly, I don't believe that I violated any "policy" by my action (as I was accused of).

Looking over WP:SPAM, it not only describes what not to do, but when it's appropriate. Friendly notice and Canvassing.

But as I said, It's not just about policy. And unless the vote stacking/advertising/etc accusations become more than what they are now, not to mention the typical "me too"s, I'll likely leave this unsaid. They're entitled to their opinion. RfA is one of the few places in Wikipedia that that is directly true and likely appropriate. - jc37 20:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

16 RfA notices
''[Archival note: I sent the following message to the editors listed immediately following. I removed the message from each talkpage once the RfA was concluded, except for the 2 listed below, since discussions had followed the message:'' Hi You are one of 16 editors who I decided to infrom about my request for adminship, which is now in its second day. Why 16? I don't know, I just like the number. Though it was tough only selecting 16. : ) Why you? Well, you are someone who I feel might offer a thoughtful/insightful opinion, based on what I have witnessed of you previously. I place no expectation on your response. Thank you in advance for any effort involved (such as going through my contribution list, and even just taking the time to read and post). In any case: Have a great day! : ) - jc37 13:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Recipients

 * User:Carcharoth
 * User:Daveydweeb
 * User:David Kernow
 * User:EngineerScotty
 * User:Evrik
 * User:Fred Bauder
 * User:Hnsampat
 * User:Ian13
 * User:Jim182
 * User:Jim62sch
 * User:Kbdank71
 * User:Lady Aleena
 * User:Mike Selinker
 * User:Wryspy
 * User:Hiding
 * User:Wiki alf

RfA
Hi You are one of 16 editors who I decided to infrom about my request for adminship, which is now in its second day. Why 16? I don't know, I just like the number. Though it was tough only selecting 16. : ) Why you? Well, you are someone who I feel might offer a thoughtful/insightful opinion, based on what I have witnessed of you previously. I place no expectation on your response. Thank you in advance for any effort involved (such as going through my contribution list, and even just taking the time to read and post). In any case: Have a great day! : ) - jc37 14:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You have my support, although from reading the rfa, it's doubtful it will pass. My suggestion to you is if it doesn't, wait about six months before trying again.  And don't let it bother you.  The rfa process has gotten so screwed up, it's almost impossible to have a good one.  Someone is always going to oppose for the stupidest (or worse, incorrect) reason, and no amount of discussion will change their mind.  --Kbdank71 14:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I have to admit, the "me too"s, were a bit disenheartening, especially when it was so obvious to me that no time was apparently being taken to actully look over my contributions. For example, knowing about current events (as I eventually noted), or that I had previously put myself up for an editor review, and only had one response. (He's another of the 16 : )
 * I actually was appreciating the neutrals. Several said nice things, though "needs more experience" also made me wonder : )
 * And by the way, Thank you for taking the time to comment. - jc37 14:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

RfA
Hi You are one of 16 editors who I decided to infrom about my request for adminship, which is now in its second day. Why 16? I don't know, I just like the number. Though it was tough only selecting 16. : ) Why you? Well, you are someone who I feel might offer a thoughtful/insightful opinion, based on what I have witnessed of you previously. I place no expectation on your response. Thank you in advance for any effort involved (such as going through my contribution list, and even just taking the time to read and post). In any case: Have a great day! : ) - jc37 14:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm posting this reply here instead of at your page (which is obviously where a person should post a reply) in case anyone checks this out and mistakes your note above for vote stacking. I should point out that Jc37 did not ask for anything but my opinion. He asked based on the quality and kind of contributions I have made previously, regardless of whether I had previously agreed with him (him?) on issues. I find that not only appropriate but commendable. Wryspy 20:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar!
(copied from Requests for adminship/Jc37) "And while I thought all the comments were interesting, I want to single out one person - User:David D. He not only went through my contributions list (and I have to admit, I really liked hearing from everyone who obviously did so), but he also showed how much of an encyclopedist he is, and cited sources from it. Even though he voted support, I hope that no one will misunderstand when I say that once this RfA is over, I intend to give him a barnstar for his efforts. It's intended as a "nudge" so that he continues this sort of work on RfA and elsewhere in wikipedia."

[Archival note:Following that quote was the "Barnstar of Diligence", with the following comment: - jc37 20:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)]
 * Please continue your the excellent work on RfA and everywhere else on Wikipedia. : ) - jc37 17:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar! - Thanks
That was a surprise. :) Sorry your RfA didn't go well. I should add that the sarcastic comment you made after my contribution was probably not a good idea. Even if a joke, and the irony is real, you need to be careful how such comments are perceived. I suspect you already know that now ;)  Good luck with your continued editing an future rfa. I'd recommend waiting at least 3 months before running the gauntlet again. David D. (Talk) 19:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You're quite welcome, it's well deserved. : )
 * Honestly, I think the RfA went quite well. Gaining the mop wasn't my only hope/intended goal. I learned quite a bit; about myself, about others, about RfA, and about wikipedia in general. But thank you for the empathy. : )
 * And as an aside, the comment wasn't intended to show sarcasm, but more a bemused observation. Hence the term "irony". Though I saw/can see how it could be taken that way. And because of that, I decided to not defend it, but rather just "stand by it", since editors will interpret it however they wish, in any case.
 * Well, from what I've been reading, an absolute minimum of a month is stringly suggested, with a general minimum of 2 months. So who knows, maybe around the feast of St. Nicholas, or Little Christmas : ) - jc37 19:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Ouch
Sorry, I meant to get around to your rfa but I've found myself immersed in other matters. I apologise, and offer commiserations that it turned out the way it did. RFA is a tough place these days, I don't actually think you are that far away from admin status to be honest. I think McGinnly's question was odd, to be honest, I wouldn't answer much different myself and I'm an admin. Still, glad to see you learning from it. If you need a nomination next time let me know. Hiding Talk 19:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * First, thank you for the comment. I saw you were somewhat buried in other matters. But even so, no need to apologise, as I said, I had no expectations : )

For further info see: Kbdank's talk page; Wryspy's talk page; my talk page And for "after comments": David D.'s talk page and my RfA page itself (in particular, my "last day comments at the top). And I appreciate the nomination offer. see David D.'s talk page for my comment on that. (Sorry about all the "see also"s, but it sounds better to not try to re type out another essay : ) - jc37 16:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC) - [Archival note: All those discussions noted above are now unified on this page. - jc37 20:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)]


 * Let me know next time you are up for admin. I'll probably support then. Sorry you didn't make it this time. Carcharoth 21:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)