Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jareth


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

Jareth
Final (27/5/4) ended 03:17 22 November 2005 (UTC)

– I have been with Wikipedia since June 2005. I can't get to Kate's tool at the moment, but I believe I am over 3,000 edits (since the last I remember checking). Most of my contributions have focused on article cleanup and maintenance, though I do throw in the occasional new piece when I come across something I believe to be worthwhile. I think adminship would increase my ability to assist in the general cleanup that goes on and appreciate your consideration. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 06:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I had better accept ;) .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 06:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Support
 * Contribs look good, although as mentioned below might be better if you engaged in discussions with others on user_talk pages. NSLE ( 讨论 ) \< extra > 06:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I've discovered as per below that what I thought isn't correct, I'm tempted to change my vote. Therefore, see below. Also I'm sorry if this sounds horribly wrong, or that I'm judging you or something, rather this is a misjudgment from myself. NSLE ( 讨论 ) \< extra > 08:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) I'm tempted to remind people that this should be no big deal, but I know better. So Jareth welcomes new users and has been fortunate enough, hitherto, in avoiding conflicts. Are those really bad things? From what I see in Jareth's record he has potential to be a great admin and has been here long enough to become a trusted member of the community. Support. -JCarriker 09:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * That's what I thought at first, but a nice balance of all sorts of edits is always good, isn't it? NSLE ( 讨论 ) \< extra > 09:48, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes it is, but it's not worth denying adminship in my opinion. Wikipedian's specializations are unique I see no need to enforce a blanket standard on a user who meets the requirements; has been here a while and is generally regarded as a trusted member of the community. While I respect the dissenting users opinions, I must disagree with them. -JCarriker 10:04, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Looking at your userpage, I'm hoping your wikistress wasn't caused by this o.o... I get your (and Haukurth's) point(s), but it's no use arguing this now. (And for me to switch my vote again for whatever reason would be ridiculous). Thanks for your comment though, I'll try to remember the the next time a similar RfA comes up. Now, back to voting, let's stop detracting! NSLE ( 讨论 ) \< extra > 10:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Support No big deal - and I thought he she was one already, anyhow. The guy's gal's offering to do more work for us, I say we let him her. There's nothing that indicates that he'll she'll abuse admin tools. But if this nomination fails then please keep up the good work and come again soon - we need more admins willing to tackle copyvio backlogs. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 09:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Quality edits, especially in wikifying and cleanup, and vandal patrolling. We need more editors like him. - Mailer Diablo 10:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, insane enough to be on helpdesk-l. Go forth and do good stuff! Alphax &tau;&epsilon;&chi; 14:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. In my view, the Talk record shows this user has handled a few thorny issues, which is a good sign. More community interaction would be desirable but I don't see that as a bar to adminship. The Land 15:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Good editor, will be good admin --Rogerd 15:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Support: no reason to believe he will abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Enthusiastic David Bowie support --M  e rovingian  (t)N (c) 00:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Support, solid record of editing and vandal-fighting. Lack of talk-page contributions is a bit unusual but not a no-go issue and explanations seem satisfactory. Palmiro &#124; &#91;&#91;User talk:Palmiro&#124;Talk]] 01:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Support--Duk 02:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Support Kate's tool is back up. He does have over 3000 if you count the 226 deleted edits. His record is good and shows a lot of work. -- Dak ota   t    e  ''' 06:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Support due to namespace-countitus in the oppose votes. I don't get many messages on my talk page, and most of my talk edits are due to giving standard template messages to vandals. Users talk over the place, and can not be measured with edit counters. NSR (talk) 11:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Support Excellent wikifier and vandal fighter from the looks of things. I don't have a problem with comparing namespaces, but Talk contributions seem less than relevant for a person who busies himself doing the grunt work others don't have patience for. Marskell 12:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 13)  Weak Moderately Strong Support, only seen him once, and it was good :) R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 23:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC) After remembering where I remember Jareth for, I remember that Jareth's been quite likable, so support strongly ;-)  R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 00:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Strong support After responding to a rather problematic topic/RfC I posted and after I solicited additional assistance, regardless of J.'s longevity on Wikipedia, I have found Jareth to be very analytical, conciliatory, pleasant to work with, and somewhat humorous. Thus, I offer my unsolicited support for Jareth's RfAdmin. E Pluribus Anthony 01:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 15)  Θrǎn   e    (t)   (c)   (e-mail)  04:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) Support. utcursch | talk 06:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) Support. The links provided by the anonymous user (24.55.228.56) opposing below convinced me that Jareth should be an admin. She was calm, polite, and clear about the relevant policies in that interaction.  You certainly don't have to be an admin to cite the blocking policy, which constitutes advice, not a threat.  Chick Bowen 14:52, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) Support. Hard worker.  A look at his/her contribs shows s/he does a lot of gruntwork.  Comments on talk pages are friendly, whether they be welcome messages or politely worded requests to stop vandalizing.  Always uses edit summary.  A good deal of reverting vandalism--so the admin tools would be good for this user.  delldot | talk 04:10, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) Support. Looks as though this user doesn't allow others to pick a fight with her, helps sort out disputes, and could use the admin tools to make the project better.  —Cleared as filed. 16:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 20) Support mainly based on cool-headed dealings with anon in the oppose column. Borisblue 18:49, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 21) Support Everything looks fine to me...little more interaction. MONGO 12:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 22) Support. Despite not having focussed on editing articles in a major way, she has put a lot into the Wikipedia project as a whole by cleaning up. Some people are just more made for that. More importantly, she's made over 260 replies to the helpdesk-l list, an important point of contact for ignorant members of the public and future Wikipedians alike. jnothman talk 14:14, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 23) Support. Has plenty of helpful interaction with new/potential members of the community on helpdesk-l. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 24) Support Izehar 16:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 25) Support. My original opposition was due to what I saw as lack of interaction with other users; however, now that I see Jareth is quite involved on the helpdesk-l, I have no problems supporting. -- M P er el ( talk 17:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 26) JFW |  T@lk  02:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Oppose Neutral
 * 1) Oppose. Only 31 edits to article-talk pages, which shows too little community interaction. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Looking in another perspective, it can be seen as positive as it may mean that he hasn't got into much conflict with other editors. :) - Mailer Diablo 10:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Only 31 article-talk page edits??? Community interaction is essential to good adminning. Jayjg (talk) 18:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 78 talk page edits over all namespaces, for what it's worth. Also see Jareth's answer to question 4 below if you didn't already. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 18:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Based on the edit imbalance, I feel this user needs more of a record on which to judge his capabilities. "Better safe than sorry vote", and I look forward to supporting later. Xoloz 05:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose After only receiving an admin nomination, Jareth is acting as if s/he is king of wiki. S/he is presently threatening me with suspension, and s/he is not yet an admin. Please read her/his threatening message here:   I have never broken the 3RR rule, despite her/his agressive talk.  Make her/him an admin and you will have created a monster. Be warned. --24.55.228.56 02:19, 18 November 2005 (UTC)UPDATE: Jareth wrote that "If either you or 24.55.228.56 continue with the edit wars and reversions today, you will be blocked from editing."  Jareth presently has no authority to block anyone. Do you want to give him/her that power?--24.55.228.56 03:18, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * After reading a bit of the debate you're referring to, yes Jareth is exactly the sort of person that I want to have the right to block people. The Land 15:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose, there's almost nil interaction with other users to be able to make a judgment on this editor. Most of the edits are simply disambigs and grammar, which is still necessary and good, but I'd like to have a little more of something to go on before I can support for adminship. -- M P er el ( talk 06:57, 20 November 2005 (UTC) changed vote, see above. -- M P er el ( talk 17:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the reasons stated. Izehar 23:48, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Admins must of necessity interact widely with the community. Experience doing so is an indsiputable must, and is also very necessary to be able to carefully judge the temperament of a candidate. -Splash talk 14:49, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral after reading his answer to Q.3 and noticing that the no. of his contribs to user_talk space is less than 50, most of them being either welcome messages or test-warning messages. --Gurubrahma 06:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely correct. I believe most of my discussion has been on article Talk pages, and not in the user space.  Talk:Robert_Steadman would be a recent example. Thank you for the input. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 06:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral per original vote and followup comment. NSLE ( 讨论 ) \< extra > 08:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral- I saw Jareth’s comments on Gurubrahma’s talk page where I had gone to post a message. I moved on to learn more about Jareth, and  I found him really fine, and he has all the potentials to become a good administrator very soon. --Bhadani 17:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral Too low in talk edits --Jaranda(watz sup) 21:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Comments
 * User has 2756 edits; activity on talk spaces (article and user and wikipedia, etc) is 2.76%; activity on project space is 13.10% and activity on article namespace (many of them edits which could be considered minor) is 88.70%. NSLE ( 讨论 ) \< extra > 08:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, the percentages don't match, so if someone could go back and double check (Kate's Tool is down, this was done through excel), it'd be good. NSLE ( 讨论 ) \< extra > 08:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * You do have an email set, don't you? Alphax &tau;&epsilon;&chi; 14:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 15:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Did I mention she's a she? Alphax &tau;&epsilon;&chi; 17:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * If you read J's user page, this is clear; she's a self-professed tomboy. And she's not just a she: she's a she-bang! ;) E Pluribus Anthony 18:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
 * A. I believe I would work mostly on backlog, specifically on pages needing deletion and copyvio issues. Since most of the patrol I do in not on RC, but shortpages and wikification, it would be helpful to be able to speedy the pages I come across that have slipped through the cracks.  I imagine I'd also be involved in blocking since I often come across repeated vandalism when browsing shortpages.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. My favorite has probably been the improvements to Citrus production; it was a stub that had been vfd'd, but I felt it had a lot of potential -- a quick bit of on the spot research and help from other editors who felt it could be improved resulted in a quality article. Most of my other major contributions center on animal articles or project work (i.e. stub sorting, disambiguation, punctuation and syntax fixes).  I also participate in the Cleanup Taskforce and had a great time working on the NetBIOS article.


 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * A. I haven't been personally involved in many edit conflicts; I tend to head them off by starting a dicussion on any disagreements before they become an issue. I do occasionally comment on on-going issues and rfc's -- I believe there's always a compromise, though sometimes it takes outside input or cooler heads to see it.  I anticipate I'll continue to use a good discussion as the first line of defense in the future.


 * 4. Do you accept that being an admin requires good communication with others? Do you forsee increasing your community interaction, regardless of the outcome of this RfA?
 * A. Absolutely, to both questions.  In fact, I've recently become active on Helpdesk-l and assist in answering questions.  I honestly hadn't considered that taking discussions off-wiki would be a road-block, however, I do understand its not as easily trackable.  One of my favorite mediation feats actually occurred entirely off-wiki -- the community supporting the Joomla! fork of Mambo wrote a page, which was afd'd shortly thereafter for its ad-like quality.  I've spent a great deal of time with them explaining how Wikipedia works (their influx of support looked very sockpuppet like) and working with them on how to create a better article.  I think it can still use improvement, but it is no longer entirely an ad and most of the revert warring has stopped.  Unfortunately, since this was all done via IM, forum and IRC, there's just no paper-trail to display.


 * The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.