Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jéské Couriano


 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it .

Jéské Couriano
'''Final (53/1/0); Originally scheduled to end 08:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC). Nomination successful. --Deskana (talk) 11:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)'''

- I have been present and active on Wikipedia since August 2006, and have been an active discusser, very helpful to others in areas such as Requests for page protection and Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.  Jéské  ( v^_^v Kacheek! ) 08:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: I intend to continue to help out at requests for page protection, as I have been, and at MfD, where I give my two cents. I don’t intend to wield the blockbaton much if at all because of the disputes I’m in (see below), but I am willing to help any user who needs aid of an administrative nature, provided they aren’t doing it to whet an axe.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: As I have tended to discuss more than actually edit, my best contributions to Wikipedia have been discussions. Most of my most eloquent arguments have been made in the midst of my two largest disputes, and the mainspace edits I do have are mainly vandalism reverts.


 * 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: I have been in a few conflicts, but I have mainly been in two major ones – the first one was in regards to romanized 4th-generation Pokemon names before they were officially announced. The issue was spread across several articles and required several move protections, finally resolving when the official names were revealed, proving themselves to be the same as the purported names.  The second (and current) one is in regards to a meme (I will refer to it here as “SIHULM” so as not to trip Lupin’s badwords filter) which has been used to vandalize and as a cover to troll. Today I am still engaging in debates regarding the meme and requesting page protections for the affected pages (List of Pokemon (241-260), Mudkip, Mudskipper, and their talk pages) whenever the vandalism reappears en masse.
 * 4. Question from Miranda : I would like to know what your interpretation of BLP is, since as an administrator, you will be working with resolving disputes with living persons.
 * A: My interpretation is that anything about a living person that is unsourced needs to go, harmful or helpful, until a reliable source arrives that confirms the statement, and that any of the same with weak or unusable reliable sources also be excised (and discussed why it was removed) on the talk page. The same should apply to everyone who has died within the past year or so.  - Jéské  ( v^_^v  Kacheek! ), 19:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 5. As an admin candidate what is Your opinion of customizing your signature in accordance with WP:SIG? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feydey (talk • contribs) 16:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * A: I didn't realize adding the "contibs" part was going to put me at odds with it. I will be more than happy to comply with WP:SIG if I am given notice my signature breaches it. - Jéské  ( v^_^v  Kacheek! ) 18:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Your sig definitely does not breach WP:SIG. Including brief additional internal links is generally tolerated when used to facilitate communication or to provide general information. —  iride scent   (talk to me!)  12:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: My sig with the Contribs link was over three lines long. -Jéské ( v^_^v ) 18:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * 6. Would you add yourself to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall? Why, or why not? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * A: I would, with the caveat that the users have at least two months of tenure, because I would prefer that if the community has lost faith in my abilities as an administrator, I know about it and, if I'm found to be incapable for some reason, users be allowed to request I reconfirm. -Jéské ( v^_^v ) 22:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

General comments

 * See Jéské Couriano's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.


 * Links for Jéské Couriano:

''Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Jéské Couriano before commenting.''

Discussion


Support
 * 1) Support Good active user who often participates in the different admin boards. nattan g 08:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Liked the answers, meets my standards. Handled self well in the Mud Kipz thing. Articulate, sensible, cool under stress. Admittedly cursory review turned up no problems. Cheers, :) Dloh cierekim  13:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Well thought answers and is a very good editor as well. No major concerns here. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 13:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support like what I've seen from this user.Rlevse 15:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Has proven himself to be well-versed with policy and doesn't have any trouble with keeping his cool. - Warthog Demon  17:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. Definately. --Hirohisat 紅葉 18:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support per Siva... NHRHS2010 Talk  19:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support, don't see why not. Stifle (talk) 20:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support My interactions with Jeske have been nothing but productive, and I believe the tools will go to very good use. Jmlk  1  7  21:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Support Experienced editor who will not abuse tools. Ronnotel 14:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Support His continual presence at ANI shows the experience and coolhead needed by an admin. Woodym555 22:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Support.  bibliomaniac 1  5  22:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Support per Hirohisat. jonathan (talk — contribs) 23:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Support Sumoeagle179
 * 15) Support Obviously ready! Gutworth (talk) 02:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) Impressed with this users' recent handling of an SPA on RfPP.  Daniel  02:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) Support per nom, I see nothing amiss looking through contribs. Phgao 03:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 18) My interactions with this user, and a survey of his contributions indicate that he will use the tools in a mature and intelligent fashion; he therefore has my support. --Haemo 04:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 19) Support - no problem with me. My interactions w/this user have been fine, no reason to believe they will abuse the tools.  - Philippe &#124; Talk 04:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 20) Great work clerking at RFPP - get out there and do it yourself :P ~ Riana ⁂ 05:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 21) Yeah. Been doing a good job. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 07:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 22) Support - aah a protector...welcome aboard...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 23) Support It turns out that User:Husond found a massive cache of extra mops lurking in the basement. And given your contribution history, diversity of editing, collaborative spirit and RFPP graft you may as well have one of them. Best. Pedro : Chat  15:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 24) Strong support. Everything I've seen from this user looks excellent. Will make a great admin.  Melsaran  (talk) 18:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 25) Support. Looks good to me.  -- 19:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 26) Support Track is good with over 2000 mainspace edits and over 4000 overall .See no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards 20:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 27) Support -- Good quantity and quality of edits, good sense of humor, and active at many important spaces in WP. Bearian 21:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 28) Support No way I can oppose, I herd he lieks mudkipz. east . 718  at 03:02, 10/12/2007
 * Sorry if this sounds harsh, but I'd prefer I not even be mentioned in the same sentence as "Mudkipz"(sic). -Jéské ( v^_^v ) 03:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I been working on a project for around 40 hours straight, so my sarcasm detector may be broken at this point... if that comment was serious, I meant no ill will and was just trying to interject humor&mdash;I'm supporting you based on your merits. If not, ignore this comment. :) east <big style="color:#090">. 718  at 07:17, 10/12/2007
 * 1) Support - I'm sure he will cut down on the fortnightly RFPPs for List of Pokémon (241-260). Will (talk) 09:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support, but please stop calling people lusers. Neil   ム  12:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, Good editor, I don't foresee any problems here.  E LIMINATOR JR  13:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Strong editor.  Lara  ❤  Love  19:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Seen this applicant at AIV, and from contribs appears that the buttons are a next logical step. LessHeard vanU 22:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Decent user. Acalamari 22:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support – Unlike Anonymous Dissident, I think you've been doing a good job. [[Image:Face-wink.svg|25px]] —<tt><font color="#002BB8">Animum ''' | <font color="#5A3696">talk <tt>]]</tt> 00:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) As per AD's spelling :p --<font face="Harlow Solid Italic" color="black">DarkFalls  talk 02:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Lol fixed. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 09:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support – the main dispute I've seen Jeske as being involved in, one which I was involved in as well, as instigated by several IP users' failure to understand WP:N,WP:V, and WP:RS due to a conflict of interest. Jeske demonstrates much knowledge of important Wikipedia policies.  He would definitely be a great, appreciated welcome to the admin group because of his desire to protect the general welfare of Wikipedia.  Ksy92003  (talk)  03:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - was heading to Jéské's talkpage to see if he wanted a nomination and discovered that I'd missed the boat... WjBscribe 03:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - No reason not to. Ne<font color= "#03C03C">ra<font color= "#32CD32">n e i   (talk) 03:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. I liked his calm demeanor during the 'meme' debates in Talk:Mudkip and its archives. He kept his temper when there could be reason for losing it. He appears to know policy well. EdJohnston 04:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support per nom :D No, seriously, I don't like the nom at all. Certainly a valuable editor like Jeske can find someone he worked together with, who would put some nice remarks here? Imho the third person's perspective is always better than self nom. I also am surprised to see the candidate didn't even accept the nom. I know that's redundant in a self nom, but lets pls stick a bit closer to the rules. However, the candidates contribs speak for themselves, and his numerous postings in discussions show diplomatic skills we need in our admins. Whoever said RfA is a problem? We only need more great candidates like Jeske. Very encouraging. Gray62 09:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. A user who is calm in a crisis and has participated in important discussions. My only caveat is the vandalism counter on the user page. Sam Blacketer 10:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I can remove that - my page is semi'd, and has been for a few months. -Jéské ( v^_^v ) 11:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Just out of curiosity, Sam Blacketer, what is the issue with having a vandalism counter on your user page? (For the record, I did have one, but don't anymore, as of a couple months ago, so this isn't a major issue for me.)  Ksy92003  (talk)  14:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I feel that while their intent is innocent (to display 'battle honours'), they can sometimes goad vandals to attack again; they also have the unfortunate effect of drawing attention to Wikipedia's unfortunate reputation for being assailed by juvenile vandals and the articles containing inaccuracies. A small thing really and not sufficient to change my vote. Sam Blacketer 09:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * My user page is semi'd, so the Vandalism Report would have been stale for 2-3 months (when I originally had it semi'd after a death threat against me by a dynamic IP). I've already removed it; I don't plan on having my userpage unprotected anytime soon because of SIHULM and someone who seems to target me a lot. -Jéské ( v^_^v ) 10:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Strongest possible support - Seen you around, and thought you already were an admin. I shall come to you often for RfP when you get the mop! Rudget Editor Review 15:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this candidate! - 17:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support you will help with WP:RPP and other issues. I think, you have the experience to be a admin. Good luck. Carlosguitar 19:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Yeah ok. – Steel 21:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) So I herd this user liek wants to become an admin? hbdragon88 03:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support - Just about there I think. Very good interaction skills, which is essential to being an admin, so well done! :-) <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans-serif"> Lra drama 10:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support - super editor & very civil with all. I know his work from RPP and from his endless patience on the Pokémon series of articles. Good knowledge of policy. All the boxes are ticked :) - A<font color= "#FF7C0A">l<font color= "#FFB550">is o n  ❤ 10:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Strong communication skills, and definitely deserving of the mop. No concerns in the slightest. --<font color="Green">B <font color="Blue">figura (talk) 18:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support looks like a good addition to the mop crew. Carlossuarez46 22:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Support See nothing to suggest will abuse the tools. Davewild 06:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 10:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose
 * Oppose Above all else, administrators need to be civil to set a good example for other users. While this RFA is ongoing, the editor made the following incivil comment:  Besides being rude, that comment shows a lack of understanding of how XfD works.  Comments are suppose to state reasons, not merely be shrill conclusions. - Jehochman  Talk 11:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * While I support your view that WP:Civil is very important for admins, imho the example you cite isn't exactly a reason for serious concerns. Last time I looked, WP:Civil covers insults against editors and their work. It says nothing about venting frustration by swearing when it's not specifically directed at something or somebody, right? And a single rhetorical question, born out of frustration about an already 'soved' issue coming up again, sure isn't evidence of a serious misunderstanding of policies, or is it? :-/ Gray62 12:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I looked a bit deeper into this and found that actually you are the one who created the noticeboard that Jeske voted against in an a bit ill tempered manner. Well, thx for bringing this alleged case of incivility to our attention, Jehochman, but, with all due respect about your impressive resume so far, don't you think that, as an involved party in this, you  should have better abstained from voting on this RfA? I'm sure you acted in good faith, but it's quite difficult to come to an unbiased judgment under such circumstances. I mean, you can't rule out a subconcsious bias, after all. :-/ Gray62 13:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement of impartiality at RFA. The candidate was unwise to make intemperate comments while at RFA. Once he gets the tools, I expect things could get worse, so I have opposed.<S> By the way, REDVERS seems to have deleted and recreated the MfD, therby hiding the evidence. (not so) I'd like to hear from the candidate directly. :-/ - Jehochman  Talk 13:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, as a noob editor, I still think this is kind of an WP:COI issue, but as an esteemed expert in the field, you sure know more about this than I. Well, I'm eager to read the candidate's reply, too. :-/ Gray62 13:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Per Jehochman's request, I'm reposting here a comment I left at his talkpage: "Well, sry, but the way you presented it left the impression that you're a third party. Wouldn't it have been better if you would have disclosed that the alleged incivility was allegedly aimed at you? Don't forget, in the case of Matt47 (or what's his number) you also didn't provide the info that you were an involved party in the first place. Honestly, editors might start seeing a pattern here..." Don't forget, just my personal opinion. I'm interested in reading other views. Gray62 16:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops. I revisited the incident I mentioned above, and it isn't like I remembered it. When reporting about Matt57, Jehochman did mention that the "rudeness" was directed against him, before making general points about "RfA blackballing" . Sry, Jehochman, of course this is quite a different case. I apologize. Gray62 17:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Jenochman has every right to oppose or support as he wants. Just because he created something that got MfD'd and I made a delete vote on it doesn't mean he's conflicted.
 * As for the seemingly-incivil comment, I had swore in a fit of pique over the fact that the opera had moved to a new theater, so to speak, and so I argued to delete it with prejudice. In fact, the comment "can't this be speedied?" was an honest question because it looked like a recreation of CSN. -Jéské ( v^_^v ) 18:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, my comments were centering on the fact that he didn't disclose his involvement. This sure happened in good faith, but it still left a somewhat unfortunate impression (at least on me)Gray62 18:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That's fine. I can forgive the lapse, if you promise to be more careful about civility. Other people will be watching and copying you.  When you become an administrator you need to be especially mindful of your leadership role.  You'll also face many stressful situations, so you need to avoid acting on pique.  Can you raise your standards? - Jehochman  Talk 18:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can. I can work on that the same time I'm breaking the habit of using "Nuke" in place of "Delete" first (per the comment below by W.marsh), since that seems to be a larger XfD civility problem. -Jéské ( v^_^v ) 18:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Oppose per above and other recent incidents showing lack of XFD familiarity... nominating for deletion when a merge/redirect was clearly called for and another rude "nuke" comment. Making rude, inflammatory comments at AFD like "nuke it" is just not something admins need to be doing... we need to encourage people to write content, not ridicule them for it when they don't get it perfect. --W.marsh 17:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh huh. Jeske wrote "Nuke per WP:NOT#INSTRUCTION", two other editors wrote "Delete". Shocking. Hmm, where does WP:civil say that this is inappropriate in an AfD procedure? And as for the other incident, pls note that experienced admin ^demon visited that article without noticing that it was redundant. Looks like admins aren't perfect. Gray62 17:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Admitting to wanting to "nuke" content is a big red flag for me... it's the people who want to delete something so much they don't even consider merging, improving, etc. --W.marsh 17:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not a fan of deletionists, either. However, didn't you move the goalposts here? By your own account, the problem isn't so much the rudeness, but a certain attitude towards deleting content... Gray62 17:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * An attitude that's revealed by rude comments... what's your point? --W.marsh 18:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm only a noob, but I'm quite sure that repeated violations against WP:civil is a valid point in RfA's, but the dislike of an attitude isn't... Gray62 18:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's called an "unhelpful Comment": "Example: Oppose - user disagreed with me in an AFD debate. ABitDisagreeable 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)" Gray62 18:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Despite the impression you might get from essays, you can't throw a comment out at RFA just because you've found a page that you think says the comment is "unhelpful". I've explained why the problems I mentioned suggest the candidate wouldn't make a good admin... it's for the b'crats, not misquoted essays, to decide how much weight my comments are given. --W.marsh 18:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, firstly, it isn't misquoted, and secondly, this article is cited in the box at the start of WP:RfA. Sry for thinking this is relevant. But, you're right, let's wait for the 'crats, this RfA is almost over. No need to become foes about thisGray62 18:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I use "Nuke" arguments in place of deletes habitually; that does not mean I vehemently want it gone. In fact, in the CSN noticeboard MfD (2nd nom), I changed my reasoning to Merge to AN/I. As for the Monster Manuals AfD, I will admit that I jumped the gun on that, and I withdrew my nomination. My argument for the Fifa AfD was that it appeared to be nothing but game guide, which is not allowed - I've been through the song and dance with the Pokemon articles. And, Gray62, please don't give essays the same force as policies or guidelines. -Jéské ( v^_^v ) 18:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, my comments were centering on the fact that he didn't disclose his involvement. This sure happened in good faith, but it still left a somewhat unfortunate impression (at least on me)Gray62 18:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC) This comment was inverted at the wrong place in the thread, sry. Was moving it, but edit conflictGray62 18:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What involvement? Of the three deletion discussions I've referred to, I'm pretty sure I wasn't involved in any of them. I found them by looking through the candidate's contribs list... to my knowledge I hadn't heard of any of those discussions before today. --W.marsh 18:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * 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.