Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jéské Couriano 2


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

Jéské Couriano
'''Final (9/22/8); ended 04:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC) per WP:SNOW. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking....  04:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination
– This is my second RfA, the first (successful) one having been four years ago. I am 13 months away from the July 2010 desysop and I feel that I have matured considerably since then. Admittedly, I was very selfish in the last month before I lost the mop. — Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 09:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
 * 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
 * A: The place where I felt I was most effective last time was page protection, with other effectiveness in the area of user unblock requests. I will likely be working mainly in those two areas again.


 * 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * A: My best work, but also a badge of shame, stems from a dispute on Bates method, where I kept both sides from blowing up at each other due to the disruptive behavior of one user, who has since left the project after I brought the matter to ArbCom. More recently, after a very poorly-thought-out situation that would have wound up costing a COI editor his job, I tried to address it by writing WP:Corporations and the Community in hopes of reducing the severity of like situations.


 * 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: The biggest conflict I was in is not one I care to rehash because it reflects poorly on me, but the incident that caused my desysopping in July 2010 is probably the most significant one. Simply put, the dispute was over PC (which I am vehemently against for various reasons). I largely attempted to avoid it by blocking myself, but kept unblocking myself to deal with 4chan raids. After a series of talks in private with Risker and Fastily, I was desysopped and unblocked. I feel I was a bit too extreme in my demeanor at that time (not helped by my not knowing admins had reviewer permissions) and should have quietly requested a desysop at Meta instead of exacerbating matters with constant self-blocks.

I realize I'm asking about the elephant in the room, but in the end I think it might be best if it's addressed head on. I hope you'll address this question in whatever way you see fit. Obviously admin standard have grown somewhat pedantic, maybe a phase you dodged, but perhaps you caught some shrapnel from that. A little context is good for everybody here, realizing the majority of your !voters (voters if you're not into doublespeak) are unfamiliar with the context that brings us here.
 * Additional question from Shadowjams
 * 4. It's obvious that your previous desysopping was the result of a complicated conflict that could be difficult to understand in context today. More than that, I'm curious: what do you think, generally (never specific to any editor), it is that your detractors believed back then about you and why did they believe it justified removing the admin bit?...and what of that was wrong, if it was?
 * A: The main issue was my blocking and unblocking myself as I described above, nothing else. It wasn't a pattern of long-term malfeasance; it was a matter of (admittedly somewhat severe) short-term misbehavior, and shortly after I resumed regular duties without the bit, even the editor that had the most hand in my desysopping aside from Risker commented that she still considered me an admin. I'm afraid I can't give an answer that expands on Answer 3, since I answered that question in as much detail as I can still remember. — Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 11:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Additional question from Intoronto1125
 * 5. This is you second nomination for this position. What has changed between the last time and now? Were the issues raised last time fixed? Provide an example of you correcting an issue.
 * A: Unfortunately, there was only one issue raised last time, and that was my childishness/temperament, which everyone is latching on to oppose. — Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 18:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Additional question from Steven Zhang
 * 6. Several users here have commented with concerns about incivility in general, some have provided specific examples. What is your take on civility, and do you have anything to say about the examples provided? Is there any particular reason that this happened, and will it continue to happen?
 * A: I tend to be extremely passionate about things, and while I will try and explain things to someone, I have no tolerance for someone blowing off what I say and continuing on their tangent, and I will admit to having a bit of a temper. I try to be as civil as possible, but if the subject matter is something I personally feel strongly about I will defend my position in no uncertain terms. (This is part of the reason I avoid articles on religion and politics, as I have some rather entrenched views on those.) — Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 19:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

General comments
RfAs for this user: 
 * Links for Jéské Couriano:
 * Edit summary usage for Jéské Couriano can be found here.

''Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.''
 * Comment I greatly admire the humility of the nomination and the balls the candidate is showing by pitching up for what could be a thoroughly difficult experience. --Dweller (talk) 10:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Let us avoid sexist phrases like "balls", even when they are spoken in good faith without reference to the (unknown?) sex of editors, perhaps humorously or with feminist intent. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 11:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Kiefer, chummer, I identify as gay. :) — Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 11:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

 * User stats posted on the talk page. Sir Armbrust  Talk to me  Contribs  10:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Strong support - Geez, I thought I would be the first supporter, but I was beat by a troll! Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - and well done Jeske, not many people are able to acknowledge their own mistakes. We need him back as a vandal fighter.  NawlinWiki (talk) 12:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Support and let's get rolling!! Shit happens, people make mistakes, and now we're 13 months later and you're still ready. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 13:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Jéské did a lot of good as admin (especially re: 4-chan raids) & in my opinion he can be trusted to continue to do so upon regaining the admin bit. Jarkeld (talk) 17:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Really supportive and is helpful when it comes to questions. Intoronto1125 Talk Contributions   18:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Experienced and knowledgeable user. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  21:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) Weakest of supports. Nothing that sets off the alarm bells too bad. At times marginally civil, a bit hotheaded.. It's a bit against my better judgement, but I'll support. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 22:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Jéské has learned considerably from his past experiences. - F ASTILY  (TALK) 23:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) Support My experiences with this user have been positive. — G FOLEY   F OUR!  — 01:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Candidate's signature doesn't match his username at all. Showing up at RfA with such a blatant problem makes me unable to trust this user. Keepscases (talk) 13:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Why would a different signature to username make somebody untrustworthy? Lots of people do that.  Rcsprinter  (talk)  15:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's really poor form, and I certainly won't support someone who does it. Keepscases (talk) 15:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong oppose, notwithstanding Keepscase's oppose above The only blatant problem I regularly see at RfA is keepscases . Jeske's record is one of, to put it bluntly, hot-headedness; he was desysopped for losing his judgment when things get difficult, and being an admin can get really damn difficult. In my dealings with him, I've yet to get the impression that this is something he's dealt with - rather, I get the impression that he's not messed about simply because he doesn't have the tools that would allow him to. Ironholds (talk) 13:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Discussion moved to talk page. — G FOLEY   F OUR!  — 19:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Sorry, but I've seen too many instances of incivility and rigidity. I think the candidate's comments during the discussions of pending changes tended to exacerbate the heat of the debate. No need to restore adminship here. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. I think Ironholds hit the nail on the head with his reference to "hot-headedness". My impression of Jeske is as someone who is short-tempered and prone to becoming so angry that he cannot even speak with the barest civility to the people he's angry at, which makes it rather hard to resolve the sort of issues that crop up around admin actions. In addition, when someone has given up (or caused themselves to lose) the tools in the heat of anger, I would expect to see a commitment in any later RFA that such behavior would not be repeated. Instead, I only see a statement that next time, he won't block himself, he'll just resign. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose The candidate claims that 13 months have elapsed since they were last an admin and that they have matured considerably since then. I was thinking during that period of not being an admin I would find an effort to demonstrate cool-headedness. Instead I am seeing edits like this, more hotheadedness in the pending changes debate, fucking and more fucking edit summaries. This doesn't lend weight to the assertion that the user has yet matured sufficiently to be trusted with the admin tools again. --Pontificalibus (talk) 15:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know this guy, but some of it seems good-natured profane banter, not "hotheadedness"... are there any examples of situations were The Mop could have been misused had he had it? I think not supporting someone for being vulgar is not a good reason, there are plenty of salty admins that don't do DR but are super-janitors3. But the possibility of misuse is something to consider seriously. Am neutral for now.--Cerejota (talk) 22:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Cerejota, check my logs before July 2010. I've been an admin before; I lost the tools, I'm going through RfA to get them back. — Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 03:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I do not like the arguing I see on this editor's userpage, such as in this entire section. The situation was that this candidate was dealing with a hostile editor and engaged the attacker in an unproductive conversation.  Wikipedia is not a place to host flame wars.  I will say that this editor does remarkable work and I appreciate the support to LGBT issues, but administrators are supposed to suppress conflict and fighting. Jéské_Couriano sometimes likes to participate in conflict in a way unbecoming of an admin.   Blue Rasberry    (talk)   16:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per Blue Rasberry's comment. That is not something that admins should be doing. Ajraddatz (Talk) 16:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose based on concerns about temperament evidenced by various editors above, e.g., Pontificalibus's diffs, plus some I found while reviewing contribs myself, (e.g. from less than 3 months back.)  I am actually sympathetic to many of the situations in which this editor found frustrating, and very impressed by some of much of this editors work, but being able to walk away is an essential skill for someone with the mop.  --joe deckertalk to me 17:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose, Blue Rasberry sums up my feelings; I worry about history repeating in this particular instance.--Hokeman (talk) 18:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Strong oppose If a user had been desysopped, then it's unlikely for you to be resysopped. nymets2000  ( t / c / l ) 20:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Strong Oppose - I am really not liking the talk archive Blue Rasberry presented at all. An admin is supposed to stop conflict, not engage in it.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 21:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) per Ironholds, Pontificalibus, Blue Rasberry et al. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 21:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose per Pontificalibus.--v/r - TP 21:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose per Pontificalibus and others - this editor knows the RfA process, and would know that all their edits since desysop would be carefully evaluated.  Ron h jones (Talk) 23:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose per Pontificalibus and Blue Raspberry. —  Kudu ~I/O~ 23:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 11) Temperament. Townlake (talk) 00:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose. Pontificalibus points out a worrying edit summary from 5th August 2011. This is not acceptable from admins or RfA candidates. (Actually it is not acceptable for regular editors either.)  Axl  ¤  [Talk]  01:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 13) Reluctant oppose I was going to stay out of this one, but the recent bout of prolonged troll feeding is not the sort of thing we expect from an admin, and as a former admin the candidate obviously should have known better. Sorry man, but you should probably just withdraw. Believe me when I say I know how this will end if it keeps going. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 14) Ridiculous. Malleus Fatuorum 02:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose per Pontificalibus's edit summaries and the candidate's recent temperament issues. Logan Talk Contributions 02:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * off topic conversation removed to talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Primarily due to the statement that the opposers going neutral offends you. I would not find it hard to support if it were one instance of hot-headedness which led to an oppose; however, continued hot-headedness has been shown, by that comment and from the editors posting above me.  Ryan Vesey  Review me!  03:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * How is that hot-headedness? I would rather they !vote oppose instead of say oppose. — Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 03:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It is a minor amount of hot-headedness, but the comment really struck me. I see no reason that you should criticize the editors who !vote neutral.  On a side note, unrelated to the oppose, your signature annoys me in that I need to search for the link to your userpage.  Any particular reason why you don't link the actual name?  Ryan Vesey  Review me!  03:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I figured I would try something stylistically different, but if there's so much objections to it I'll revert back to the old style. — Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 03:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I really don't have a problem with using the name Jeremy, I just think that Jeremy should be wikilinked, rather than V, S, and M which give no indication as to what they are linking to until you hover over them. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  03:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) I have been enticed to oppose. Not because I get vengeance, but because you seemed to indicate that you want honest feedback. Therefor, I would not be truthful if I did not state that the very recent conduct shown by Pontificalibus is sufficient in itself for me to oppose. That being true if I had never interacted with you. I think redemption will take time and perhaps effort. I do not think it is a thing you can not overcome. With diligence, I think you can regain the admin bit, but you do have some things to overcome. My76Strat (talk) 03:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Neutral, leaning support . The candidate has shown commitment to WP. Moreover, an administrator blocking himself is an excellent first step towards a responsible community where administrators block other administrators. (On the other hand, I am concerned with the focus on popular-culture (e.g. Pokemon) content, versus traditional encyclopedia content, and the great interest in ANI/AN. The candidate protected Smegma well, and I suppose can be trusted with administrator tools again. 11:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC) perhaps after another 3 months of civil edit summaries and perhaps more writing. 15:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC))  Kiefer .Wolfowitz 10:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Would you care to elaborate on that? How is blocking oneself, knowing that one can unblock oneself at any time, comparable to blocking another admin? When an admin blocks another admin, the other admin can't just unblock themselves without community reprisal. On the other hand, one could argue that an admin blocking themselves demonstrates that they are not able to edit with a cool head all of the time and need the software to stop them. Note, I've not decided if and how to !vote here yet, I'm merely curious as to how you reached that conclusion. Regards  So Why  11:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply at User_talk:SoWhy. Focus on "shown commitment to WP", please.  Kiefer .Wolfowitz 11:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral for now, but willing to be convinced otherwise After seeing the opposes on the candidate's civility issues I've chosen to remain in neutral The candidate says in their answer to Q3: "The biggest conflict I was in is not one I care to rehash because it reflects poorly on me..." The phrase "...it reflects poorly on me..." makes me think this candidate is just trying to look the part, like they're afraid that their biggest conflict will prevent them from becoming an administrator. I look for honesty as well as policy knowledge and Wiki experience in RfA candidates, and I'd like to know what this candidate's biggest conflict was; however, I don't want to make them feel too uncomfortable. The candidate is qualified otherwise, and as I said before, I'd be willing to be convinced out of neutral.  The Utahraptor Talk/Contribs 13:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Neutral leaning support Moved to oppose 13 months, I'm forgiving and the three support !votes are all by folks whose opinion I strongly respect.  But the opposes give me enough concern to hold back.  I dont know much about the issues that led to desysop but will watch how this RFA unfolds.--v/r - TP 14:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral - moral support With similar concerns to those in the oppose section on hot-headedness, I cannot support the candidate, unless he can can somehow allay those concerns. I'd like to point out though, that I've chatted to Jeske a few times on IRC, always finding him a very personable chap and that he offered me some very good advice back when I was being harassed by sock puppets. Without a doubt a moral support.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 15:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Abstain from voting for now. I see a guy who wishes the best for Wikipedia, with lots of dedication. On the other hand, Jeske strikes me as a rude and temperable person. —  Kudu ~I/O~ 15:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Moved to oppose. —  Kudu ~I/O~ 23:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral for now, maybe I can be persuaded otherwise. On one hand I see a genuinely dedicated Wikipedian who did a lot of good work with the admin tools before the desysopping, but on the other I'm not entirely convinced that the attitude that led to the desysopping is no longer an issue. It might seem silly, but the word vehemently stood out as I was reading the answer to Q3. Passion is good, vehemence can be damaging. I would expect an administrator, when faced with something they really don't like, like Jéské and the pending changes, to be able to continue to function as an administrator, and not feel compelled to resign dramatically in protest, or cause unnecessary dramaz. But I'll continue to have a think about it and watch this RFA. Ooh Bunnies! Not just any bunnies... 15:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral (leaning to oppose). I'm concerned about the drama, and although I'm definitely in favour of people turning a new leaf and mastering their faults and weaknesses, I'm not convinced that has really, truly happened yet in this case.  I also agree with the concern expressed over this editor's signature; if you're going to be interacting with lots of different people, I believe it's important that your posted comments should be clearly and unmistakably associated with your official account name.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 18:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm really on the fence here. I am all for second chances and for letting the past go (we all make mistakes) but I would need to see a change of behaviour to do so. Unfortunately, as per the opposes and comments from other users in this section, it seems that incivility is still a problem that has not been addressed. Being passionate about what you believe in is fine, but there are many ways to express yourself without resorting to swearing or being uncivil. It's too much of an issue for me to get past, but I can't bring myself to oppose over it as I know you too well and feel opposing largely based on something that happened over a year ago would be hypocritical. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  20:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC) Abstaining from !voting.  Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  04:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * (Moved to oppose) I can not support this candidate at this time. Because some of the issues of incivility have directly vexed me, my opinion is colored. So I won't outright oppose as it could be a form of vengeance. My76Strat (talk) 20:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral - per WP:Civil. Monterey Bay (talk) 01:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you mean because you are trying to be civil or because you think Jeremy is not civil, or something else? I guess it doesn't matter as neutral comments don't directly influence the final percentage, but this is a very vague remark. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:18, 25 August 2011 (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.