User talk:Jc37/Archive/RfA/02

[From User talk:Hiding]

Adminship
Did you have that second run at adminship yet, or can I have the privilege of nominating you? Hiding Talk 12:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Haven't yet. And if you would like to, you're quite welcome to do so. I don't know if User:Kbdank71 or User:Mike Selinker (or possibly others I may have forgotten, or am unaware of) are still interested, but they may wish to be involved as well.


 * As an aside, I have to admit that your post bowled me over upon reading it. Can't exactly say why, it just did. Anyway, hope you're having a great day : ) - jc37 11:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Jc
I enthusiastically support the idea of Jc becoming an admin. Is it more useful for me to co-nominate, or just to support the nomination when it comes up? Whichever is more likely to lead to success is fine with me.--Mike Selinker 17:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I wasn't sure what to say (I can't recall ever nominating anyone). Let me know if it's ok.  --Kbdank71 22:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You know, I have to admit... It's "something" to read the nominations... Considering this feeling, I'm especially glad I was able to co-nominate MS... Anyway, thanks : ) - Oh, and I'll see if I can find a better "balance" (brevity vs elucidation) to answering the questions this time : ) - jc37 09:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, added the page to the RfA page. I also "moved" the page, since the an associated page suggested that a second nom merely have "2" after the username. Hopefully I found the balance in answering the questions : ) - Anyway, Merry Christmas to you as well : ) - jc37 13:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Not that it probably matters, but I was wondering if the nominators are also supposed to place their votes (similar to what we did on Mike Selinker's nomination)? - jc37 22:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If I thought it was needed, I would have. Besides, Radiant taught me something when he nominated me and didn't vote.  --Kbdank71 13:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[From User talk:Kbdank71]

Requests for adminship/Jc37(second nomination)
Jc has allowed me post a nomination for admin, but indicated you may be interested in co-nomming. Feel free to add your name, and let me know either way and one of me you or User:Mike Selinker can break the news to Jc that s/he can accept. Hiding Talk 17:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That's just fine. Hopefully he won't have any serious problems this time. Merry Christmas. Hiding Talk 09:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[From User talk:Mike Selinker]

Requests for adminship/Jc37(second nomination)
Jc has allowed me post a nomination for admin, but indicated you may be interested in co-nomming. Feel free to add your name, and let me know either way and one of me you or User:Kbdank71 can break the news to Jc that s/he can accept. Hiding Talk 17:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Co-nom is fine, there's been plenty of people who have had a co-nom. I think three is the optimal number, too many looks like a pile on, but no, I think you should co-nom, I don't think it will harm Jc's case, and you can better detail his work at the user category page than I. Hiding Talk 18:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[From User talk:Jc37]

Good luck
The deed is done, Requests for adminship/Jc37(second nomination). Take your time over the questions, you'll want to note your participation at Cfd as a reason for wanting the tools, and that there's been backlogs there lately. Other than that, good luck. Not that you should need it. Oh yes, the legal bit: If you accept the nomination, you must formally state your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so. If you do it, amend the time so it is the current time and the date is 7 days from acceptance, if you see what I mean. I'd guess you do where the time stamp currently is and then after saving re-edit the date, but you may know some other way. Or maybe I'm expanding too much. Who knows. Merry Christmas. Hiding Talk 09:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Don't agonise over your answers too much. I mean, mine were nothing special, Requests for adminship/Hiding. But I guess those were simpler days. Hiding Talk 09:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * FYI: Amarkov's comment got moved to the bottom of the page because it throws off the count. Up among the supportive statements, it gets counted as support even though it is not. Anyway, it doesn't make much difference. Unless fifty people show up by morning to diss you (which would be mighty suspicious), you're in. You deserve it. Congrats (prematurely). Doczilla 11:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations!
Well done on achieving 100% support on your RfA - you must be really pleased with this late Christmas present, well done! I'm sure that a Bureaucrat will be along shortly to issue you with a shiny new set of admin tools. If you need any help with your new tools then please don't hesitate to ask, I will do my best to answer you! Regards, happy mopping and Happy New Year! (aeropagitica) 15:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well the bot thought it was 100% at least. :) But in any case congratulations. Use the new tools wisely to best help the project reach its goals. Be conservative with them; to the extent possible, de-escalate a situation instead of blocking for example. I'm sure you'll do well, but don't hesitate to ask questions. - Taxman Talk 15:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * W00t! OMG SEE, IT IS NOTABLE. Hee. Congrats! -- weirdoactor tundefinedc 15:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Congrats! Now go out there and make me proud!  :)  --Kbdank71 18:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Congratulations. Now please stop bugging me. :) Seriously, any problems at all, you know where I am. Hiding Talk 18:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Congratulations from —sd31415   (sign here)  ! 20:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I've pushed the button for you :-). Sorry about the delay.  Redux 20:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I hope everyone will pardon me if I take a moment and do the Snoopy dance : ) - jc37 20:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have video of your dance. Har. -- weirdoactor tundefinedc 21:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations, Jc37! Have fun with the admin tools, and if you ever need any admin-related help, feel free to contact me. =)  Nish kid 64  16:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[From Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/RfA Report]

Oppose
Is there a reason that it's not showing any oppose votes, if there is only a single oppose vote?

(See Requests for adminship/Jc37 - 2 and Requests for adminship/GRBerry to see what I mean.) - jc37 13:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I note that the one opposer in mine didn't use the word "oppose" or any of the natural variants on that. The bot prepared discussion summaries are usually based on keyword analysis.  That isn't an issue for Jc37's page.  GRBerry 02:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[From Bureaucrats' noticeboard]

RfA
Per: Requests for adminship/Jc37 - 2, is there a further step I need to take (besides adding myself to the List and/or the Category)? (Cross-posted to Taxman's talk page as well.) - jc37 20:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No. Looks like Taxman closed the RfA but forgot to "push the button".  Sorry about that.  I've done the promotion now.  Redux 20:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[From User talk:Taxman]

RfA
Thanks for the congratulations : )

Is there a further step I need to take (besides adding myself to the List and/or the Category)? - jc37 19:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There aren't really any other specific steps. Neither the list nor category are required, in fact, the category is certainly not, that usually only comes in if people use the userbox and certainly not all admins do. Special:Listusers is enough for either. So really the best thing to do is go back through the admin reading list. - Taxman Talk 20:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * What I meant is that I don't show up on Special:Listusers as an admin : ) - jc37 20:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Scratch that, I apparently do now : ) - jc37 20:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That's because I pushed the button. Taxman, looks like you forgot the good old Special:Makesysop ;-).  Cheers,  Redux 20:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I just simultaneously left you a message saying you stole the fun part! Got tied up, sorry. - Taxman Talk 20:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, if you would like to remove, and re-add, Taxman, I don't mind (Just please remember to re-add : ) - jc37 20:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Heh, no need for that. I've had enough chances to push the promote button, I was just kidding. - Taxman Talk 20:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * (grrr @ edit conflicts) I know, but I had to offer : ) - Besides, as much as I do respect Redux, I was actually looking forward to being promoted by you. I've felt that you've had a bit of a "bad rap" lately, and I've been rather impressed both by your actions during, and after. (I know it sounds dumb, and I know we're all Wikipedians here, but you'd have laughed if you would have seen me cheer when I saw it was you that closed my RfA : ) - Anyway, my great thanks to you both, and I do hope that you're both having an awesomely great day : ) - jc37 21:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hah, well thanks, now I feel better than if I had gotten to press the button! But seriously I don't feel downtrodden about it. Some people will always complain out of proportion to the importance of an issue. That's a given, but the articles are most important. Everything else should just be here to support that as directly as possible. - Taxman Talk 21:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Plus, if we did that, the logs would still show two "+sysop" actions. Hey Taxman, sorry about that :-). I didn't realize you were online right now, or else I'd have just "poked you" to push the button.  We should drop NoSeptember a note about this (because of his "Crat stats" page), since this promotion is actually yours &mdash; and he might add a note to the fact that I just stole your thunder ;-). Cheers, Redux 20:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Heh, that's even farther, so per above, no need. Thanks for catching it. - Taxman Talk 21:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[From User talk:Redux]

Hey
You stole the fun part! :) jk, thanks. - Taxman Talk 20:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

later addition from User talk:Jc37

(cough cough)
Thought you might like to know, and would be rather interested in your experience, including pointers about CfD closures. Though I would like to think I'm decently well-versed in the processes, I'm fairly sure that I'm likely not as well-knowledgable as I may think I am (and if you figured that sentence out, I'll have to increase the population of a certain small village by one : ) - jc37 12:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Throat pastille
Hi jc37,
 * ''Thought you might like to know, and would be rather interested in your experience, including pointers about CfD closures...

Glad to hear the Good News – reminds that I should keep WP:RfA on my watchlist even if I don't recognize most of the names that pass by... Re CfD closing, my experience is neither that lengthy nor particularly profound; if/when there is a contentious discussion to close, there's usually enough dissent to render "no consensus" (!) I guess it sounds trite, but just bring the same level head to closures as you do to discussions – and, if you've been involved in starting or contributing to a disucussion, feel free to ask someone else to close it; I've recently done so myself. Best wishes, David (talk) 16:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * ''Thanks, I appreciate your insights : )
 * Also, though you sidestepped the interesting'' sentence above, you did manage to use a word (that was not a scientific term) which I had not heard of, compelling me to look it up - which is not often done : ) - jc37 09:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Chuckle – I had a sore throat at the time I responded to your message, so the word was on my mind. Re the sentence, I think I worked it out, so yes, should've said so – meantime, I've that new grizzly friend to feed, so better move him into that small village – thank you for your continued generosity! Yours, David (talk) 12:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)