Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jedi6


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

Jedi6
Final (60/10/8) ending 0:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

– User who has made over 3000 edits (with over 1/3 in the main namespace), helps to solve disputes, has been a member for eight months. --acfan-Talk to me 19:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

''Note by Xolatron: His current edit status has over 4000 edits, over 1700 of them in main namespace. See here.''


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept this nomination. Jedi6 -(need help?)  23:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Bureaucrat's Note: Due to the close nature of this RfA, and the fact that the last few hours of the nomination occurred during a server outage, I have extended the closing of this nomination until 0:00 UTC on 12 April 2006. Essjay  Talk •  Contact 01:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * More than two full days for a nine hour outage? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 05:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Why not? The RfA was massively disrupted by socks as well. Why not let the community have a little more time?  I see no problem here. Just zis Guy you know? 14:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Strong Support. Meets my criteria. My comrade-in-arms with WikiProject Star Wars and a solid editor all around. We could always use an extra janitor in the Star Wars department, not to mention a good vandalfighter. &mdash; Deckill e r 23:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong Support Looking at his edits he is not only kind but he seems to know what he's doing, he is the type of administrator we could really use! Mahogany -wanna chat?
 * 3) Support JoshuaZ 00:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - Richardcavell 04:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support meets my criteria. - W e zzo (talk) (ubx) 09:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support per Doom127. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  13:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support - Not so long ago 3000 edits was considered huge, and many of these are considered edits rather than small things which only take a few seconds each. Good contributions and no negatives. —This unsigned comment was added by CBDunkerson (talk • contribs) . Yup, forgot to sign. Sorry. --CBDunkerson 11:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support- He has done an excellent job with the Star Wars wikiproject. Griz 17:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. Has been around since August 2005 and has done a lot on the SW wikiproject. Gflor e sTalk 18:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support I am the nominator--acfan-Talk to me 18:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support Good contributor, and also a Jedi.  _-M      o      P-_   18:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Support (S). — FireFox • T [19:28, 3 April 2006]
 * 13) Support -- Jay  (Reply)  20:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Support, no problems here. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 22:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Support, per his work on the SW wikiproject. BryanG 02:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Support to counter extreme editcountitis.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  02:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Support Has experience and diversified enough edits.-- Patman2648 19:54 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Support Limited but good interaction with him. I saw him when he first dealt with Doom127 and the User:Brazil4Linux sockpuppet invasion. I thought he was an admin at the time because of the tactful way he mediated the situation (before it became clear that any resonable discourse with B4L was impossible). On a side note, Rick Browser is B4L, for anyone who didn't bother to check NSLE's link. Go figure, eh? -- Hinotori(talk) 03:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) *Support. Good editor. - —This unsigned comment was added by Tdxiang (talk • contribs).
 * 20) *Support--Jusjih 15:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 21)  Support I am a pretty new user, but he seems like he would be a very good admin. But who cares if he only edits in two sections?? If he only edits those, they will be taken care of very well while the other admins will be able to edit other articles.  Oh, but I'm not an admin myself, just in case only other admins can vote... The ed17 (talk)19:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, any user can add their opinions or make comments to Requests for Adminship. Jedi6  -(need help?)  21:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - Worked with him in the Star Wars WikiProject&mdash;Good editor and vandalfighter.  Why not? — Mir   l   e   n   01:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support A dmrb♉ltz (T | C | k) 20:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support I  Lov  E Plankton 21:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Mild support I wish that he would have waited a while before going up for RFA, but I don't think he should be denied the mop. We need more admins, after all. Matt Yeager ♫ ( Talk? ) 00:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) *Strong Support*. While I agree that he is on the early side of admins, one must remember that he didn't nominate himself. I am entirely confident that he will be a very responsible admin, as his previous contributions show. He has now made nearly 1700 edits to main namespace, and will be a quite capable and responsible adminin. About the distribution of his edits: he has made very good edits to the sections he contributes in, and he can imrove those areas greatly rather than helping very mildly in many areas. It is better to know evrything about one thing than one thing (or a little) about everything. -Xol 02:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) *Strong Support* As mentioned above, his Star Wars expertise alone makes him worthy of RFA. I also admired his attempts and patience to reason with User:Brazil4Linux during a long edit war. GoldDragon 03:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. Good user.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 08:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support, looks good. --Ter e nce Ong 13:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. (See why). Petros471 18:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support.  Grue   07:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Weak support. The answer I was looking for in my hypothetical, below, was "I would find an uninvolved administrator to help out," since it is can be a problem if you use your administrative buttons to resolve editing disputes.  With the request to keep this in mind, provisional support. Nandesuka 13:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * If you only will accept one answer, you will no doubt find a "wrong" answer most of the time. The first think Jedi6 said he would do before taking any visible action that wouldn't be used towards any ordinary vandal would be to seek the opinions of other admins. However, he said he would even wait a little while before that so as to make sure that he himself had enough suspicion of sockpuppetry. -Xol 16:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support I trust this user will be a fine admin.  jaco plane  02:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support good contributor, would not abuse the mop.  ALKIVAR &trade;[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 07:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support even though he mainly edits in one area it's no reason to deny. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - looks OK to me. &mdash;Wh o  uk (talk) 12:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Kusma (討論) 13:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support will make good use of the mop. --Alf melmac 17:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support and damn the editcountis. --Aquillion 05:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Strong support, inasmuch as his work against vandalism and toward consensus will translate well as he partakes of admin activities; notwithstanding that this editor hasn't been as involved as other prospective admins with certain namespaces, there appears to be nothing to militate against his being sysopped, and much to suggest that he will be an excellent admin. Joe 06:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support adminship is no big deal and editcountis is fatal. I see nothing that would cause me to sway though slightly more detailed question answers would be nice -- Tawker 06:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support, I'm satisfied he will perform well, so why wait? NoSeptember   talk  06:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support - Why not?  Sceptr e  ( Talk  ) 11:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Support Jedi6 seems inclined to use the tools correctly - shows understanding of policy, and all admins should not be required to be wikiholics  Trödel  11:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Support - I like his answer to questions, especially the fact that he admits his limitation of knowledge in regions outside his area of expertise (star wars+video games). As per above, he also shows a good understanding of policy. - Aksi_great (talk) 12:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Support another potential member of the rouge admin cabal. I'm a bit disappointed that Jedi is not a flammer, we could do with more of those on Wikipedia to counteract all the flimmers.  Probably. Just zis Guy you know? 14:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Strong support. Jedi6 has been instrumental in the Star Wars WikiProject and elsewhere. I feel he can make a valuable contribution if he is given the mop. Firestorm 16:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Based on Jedi6’s answers to my questions below, I pledge my support for him. He has mastered much of the wisdom of an effective administrator. I remind him that terms like “vandalism” and “protecting” are the same type used by Chancellor Palpatine to manipulate Jar Jar Binks, convincing him to propose an end to democracy in the Senate. These terms drip with hatred, pride and fear. In choosing the best path for Wikipedia, always remember the big picture. Don’t ever let yourself become a Jar Jar. --Dragon&#39;s Blood 17:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Support. Jedi6 has what it takes. He has a lot of experience. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikipeedio (talk • contribs).
 * 18) Support. — Apr. 12, '06 [17:08] <[ freakofnurxture]|[ talk]>
 * 19) Support, seems qualified enough, though he is a bit timid. The answers to my questions numbered 2 and 3 were "block" and "block", respectively.  And by the way, I'm really sorry about that whole sockpuppet incident that almost threw your RfA into jeopardy.  --Cyde Weys 05:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Support, staying generally within his area of knowledge should be commended, not given as a reason to opppose, in my opinion. -- DS1953 talk 06:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Support. Keep up the good work. (^'-')^ Covington 06:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) Support, give that boy the admin's lightsaber. Angr (talk • contribs) 07:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 23) Support. Fantastic editor! DarthVader 08:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 24) Support, per all above. &mdash; Kimchi.sg | Talk 12:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 25) Support --Rob from NY 13:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 26) Support - Looks like the Force is with you. ProhibitOnions 14:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 27) Support T-Shirts for everyone! Daniel Davis 20:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 28) After the deadline ... closing 'crat please feel free to discount this support if you feel it's appropriate to do so. I've been agonising over this candidate but decided to come down on the side of support. Although I have some experience and narrowness of focus concerns, on balance I think this editor will make a good admin. More activity would be better, but I've seen enough to decide and the question answers show thoughtfulness, which swayed me (I think Cyde's #5 question dichotomy is false, there are other sorts of admins besides rouge and timid)... Support + +Lar: t/c 16:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose


 * 1) Oppose relative inactivity until last month, cannot be certain that policies are well-versed to this user, given low project edits. NSL E (T+C) at 00:53 UTC (2006-04-03)
 * Oppose. A budding admin. Diversify your edits, and I will be happy to vote for you in a few months. Covington 02:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC) Changed to Support. (see above) (^'-')^ Covington 17:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Flammer, troll, Doom127's friend. Will be a disaster as Administrator rulling their friends desires. --Rick Browser 05:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Please don't personal attack me on my own RfA. I am not a flammer or troll. There is no evidence that I will be controlled by my friend's desires. Jedi6  -(need help?)  05:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No need to worry, he's a proven sockpuppet. NSL E (T+C) at 07:34 UTC (2006-04-03)
 * 1) Oppose. Not very active, especially in namespaces other than the main one. Roy  boy cr ash  fan  [[Image:Flag of Texas.svg|30px]] 02:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - Sorry, but I would like to see some more edits from you. Weatherman90 14:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Per above M o e   ε  20:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Per above. Inactivity with wikipedia community. --Masssiveego 06:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per above. --Phair 01:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC) - user was determined a sockpuppet of B4L.
 * This user has edits similar to that of B4L. Might want to look into this user (checkuser) just in case. I have to go to bed, so I won't be around for twelve or so hours. &mdash; Deckill e r 03:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * User was confirmed as a B4L sock. see here Daniel Davis 05:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - I don't see enough experience with Wikipedia processes, I'm afraid. It's not just AfD clearing and rollback you need to be familiar with. Sorry - if this doesn't passes, in a few months, you'd definitely get my vote. The advice I was given was to look at WP:DRV, because it really does throw you in at the deep end with policy being cited left, right and centre.  It was good advice.     Proto    ||    type    08:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Agree with NSLE. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose: not ready yet. Jonathunder 15:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose: this user does not seem to know the true definition of vandalism. If you want to know more of what I mean then post on my talk page and Ill give you the full details. He protects pages with no good reason. I would not feel comfortable with him as an administrator. Wikipeedio 18:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The reason those edits were reverted and the page was protect was because a series of IP sockpuppets of User:Brazil4Linux was attacking Jedi6, several other users, and a series of other pages. WP:SOCK states this as circumventing blocks (hence, deserving a block of the sockpuppet); therefore, Jedi6 did the right thing. Now, if Jedi6 went in and reverted YOUR recent edit and claimed it to be "vandalism", then I cound see your point. &mdash; Deckill e r 19:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. I'd like to see a few more active months here or more project namespace involvement.  &mdash; Laura Scudder &#9742; 21:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose would like to see a longer history of active contributions. Derex 21:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose I was support, but... well, I'm sorry but I think the way you handled that situation was really quite inappropriate. I can't put down a support vote at this time, and I d think that oppose it the right way to go. -- Jean Luc Picard
 * You said you opposed me because I blocked Doom127. But I can't block or unblock users since I'm not an admin. Jedi6  -(need help?)  08:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Discussion moved to User talk:Jean-Luc Picard. Jedi6  -(need help?)  08:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Opposes and Stares Down This guy's behavior is outta this world! I spy with mah little eye someone who will abuse their admin in the future. Ohhhhh no. Not gonna give ma support to THAT. The Eye 09:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: Please disregard the above three oppose votes, those were all made by the same confirmed sockpuppeteer (who is not related to Jedi6 in anyway). --Cyde Weys 10:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Neutral Candidate has nice edit distribution, and some time under his belt. Mild concerns about process familiarity prevent support now, but I like his wiki-record so far. Xoloz 03:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral, looks OK so far, but I'd prefer a little more experience. J I P  | Talk 11:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral, to low on edits, no reasons to Oppose abakharev 00:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral per NSLE, but seems like a good editor otherwise. -- <i style="color:orange;">Rory</i> 0 <b style="color:orange;">96</b> 02:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Doom127
 * The percentage display is not allowed on RfAs or is never seen on them, so Jedi6 was just trying to make sure the RfA didn't go out of form. Nice work on the display, but we can't use it. &mdash; Deckill e r 19:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * There isn't any wikipedia policy concerning the display. "Not allowed". Harumph- If you want to discuss this, you are free to do it on my talk page.
 * Uh, what? -- <i style="color:orange;">Rory</i> 0 <b style="color:orange;">96</b> 03:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't worry its not about you, Rory096. Jedi6  -(need help?)  03:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral. Editor is on the way, but only has a recent spike in edits. &mdash; Rebelguys2 <sup style="color:#CC5500;">talk 19:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Rob Church (talk) 02:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral leaning support. Neutral mostly because of the extremely narrow focus of subject matter for edits; leaning support because everything else looks fine. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 16:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral. I'm going to sit on the fence here.  The doubts regarding process perhaps need to be addressed. Hiding  talk 16:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Neutral. Could be more active within the wikipedia community, but keep up the good work. --Arnzy (Talk) 14:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments
 * Would Phair's vote count in oppose? As he is a suspected sockpuppet.  _-M      o      P-_   02:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * According to Requests for CheckUser a checkuser can be done only if the possible sockpuppet's vote makes a difference in the vote. So if it makes a difference I'll request a checkuser. Jedi6  -(need help?)  02:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Phair has been stricken from this RFA, as his CheckUser returned positive.  _-M      o      P-_   05:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 97% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 104 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 23:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * See Jedi6's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer 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 have 500 pages on my watchlist, which many usually get vandalized daily. Sysop abilities would allow me to warn and possibly preceed to block the users who vandalize. I also would be able to protect badly vandalize pages, see IGN's history. I would also be able to directly deal with move vandalism. I would be able to use the rollback feature to deal with vandalism quicker, especially since my computer is already never slow. Also I have nominated many articles for deletion and sysop abilities would allow me to further help the process and delete the pages based on consensus. Since I edit so many video game and Star Wars articles I also encounter many articles which need to be speedy deleted.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A: I am most proud of my contributions to the Star Wars WikiProject. I created the Star Wars Collaboration of the Week which has been a success in improving the quality of the Star Wars articles. I also redesigned the Star Wars Portal to be more editor friendly and have more information . While doing that I also created Portal:Star Wars/Vote to chose selected articles for the Star Wars Portal and slowly determine what articles are good and what still nead help. I'm also proud of my work on the List of Star Wars books. While the list is still incomplete (there are alot of Star Wars books), I'm proud of how I redesigned the list when I was a new user.


 * 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 was involved in the Brazil4Linux controversy. I first encountered Brazil4Linus here where he was arguing with User:GoldDragon about NPOV problems in the Nintendo GameCube article. I created a compromise that stopped the edit war on the GameCube page but the controversy soon went to other pages. Brazil4Linus over time stated that both User:Doom127 and myself were sockpuppets of Golddragon. After further controversy on the Ken Kutaragi page, see here, Brazil4Linux began using sockpuppets to support his own version of articles, see Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Brazil4Linux for the list of sockpuppets. Having not been in the argument with Brazil4Linux for a while I next encountered his sockpuppet, User:Quackshot on the Nintendo Virtual Boy page. Quackshot was reverting to a previous version by Brazil4Linux that added back mistakes and removed information for no reason. Quackshot tried to engage me in an edit war  but I instead stopped and reported him for violating the 3RR rule. Brazil4Linux continued to use several sockpuppets to avoid his ban until I reported him and User:Alkivar indefintly banned him. Brazil4Linux has come back to vandalize and attack me on 15 March 2006 where he vandalized my talk page and began using several sockpuppets, see here, to revert all my recent contributions until a combination of User:Deckiller, User:Naconkantari, User:JiFish, User:RexNL, User:Garglebutt and myself protected, blocked and reverted the changes made to the articles. I pride myself on never getting stressed, angry or violating any Wikipedia policies through the whole controversy. I believe I kept a cool head the whole time.

Questions by JoshuaZ


 * 1 Almost all your edits have been on Star Wars or video game related topics. Using Interiot's vice, in your mainspace edits, one needs to go about a fourth of the way down the page until one even comes to an article that is not related to these two narrow areas, when one comes to 5 edits for Mundelein, Illinois. We then don't get any of any other subject until the the beginning of the last 5th of the page with one edit to Bloodlines (comics). We then have about 5 or 6 other non-Star Wars, non-video game edits. Almost all your articles for deletion have also been on these two topics, as has all of your (impressive) work with templates. Given this narrow editing focus, can you explain how you have the depth and variety of experience necessary for you to be an admin?
 * A Thats not entirely true, I have 7 edits for Mundelein High School, but I get what you mean. The thing is Video Games and Star Wars are two topics I know a lot about. They are both very large and wide in range topics. I had to deal with all the Wikipedia policies before through my edits in these areas. Like Image use policy through the images I have downloaded, Neutral point of view through fan opinion in the Video game articles, No original research through fancruft in Star Wars articles and Vandalism through dealing with vandals. I have been able to edit in all the Wikipedia areas from images to templates to project namespace. While I may have edited only in those two areas, the areas have been broad enough to allow me to gain the experience necessary.


 * 2 Are there any admin powers that you would like to give to all users? Why or why not?
 * A Well I like what powers are admin. only the way they are right now. If I could give one power to regular users it would be the rollback feature since it would allow regular users to more effectively fight vandalism. I would like this ability to be given to only trusted users like the popups feature or have a required amount of edits before users could use the rollback features (more than 100).
 * 3 If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia what would it be?
 * A I would make moving pages an admin. only ability. My reasoning for this is that I have encountered several times when users would move pages in vandalism only. But I could not immediatly fix this problem since I couldn't move the page back since it existed as a redirect. If the ability was admin. only then this vandalism would be stopped completely.


 * 4 Under what circumstances will you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?
 * A When the user's username is inappropriate or just copying someone else I would indef. block them though I would offer them the chance to choose a new username. I would also indef. block known sockpuppets who are trying to overcome bans or are creating extra votes. I might also indef. ban the user who created the sockpuppets if they have a history of creating sockpuppets and only until the opinion of more editors is determined. I will not decide to indef. users by myself. I will find other users opinions and if needed will go to the Arb committee.

Questions by Nandesuka


 * 1. Please address this hypothetical situation. Assume that you are an administrator. A new-ish user shows up at the Ken Kutaragi article and begins making edits.  Those edits make you think, in good faith, that he's a sockpuppet of Brazil4Linux.  What do you do? Nandesuka 11:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * A Well first I would keep an eye on the user to see if they do anything suspicious. If they start vandalizing or attack users I would give the appropiate warnings on their talk page and block them if they continue. If the user produces several pieces of evidence that makes them seem like Brazil4Linux and continues disobeying the rules I will get the opinion of other administrators. If the user's edits involve Vote fraud or severe vandalism I will request for a checkuser on the new user to see if they are indeed Brazil4Linux. If the user turns out to be Brazil4Linux then I will ban the sockpuppet and warn Brazil4Linux to stop avoiding his block. If the user isn't Brazil4Linux then I will apoligize to the user. If the user never creates anymore evidence or breaks Wikipedia's rules then I will leave the user alone believing they are trying to contribute honestly. (Wow that was a lot of ifs) Jedi6  -(need help?)  23:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Questions by Wikipeedio


 * 1. What do you define as vandalism?
 * A Vandalism is any edit made in bad faith. Edits made in good faith though, even if incorrect, are not vandalism but a contribution to Wikipedia. Jedi6  -(need help?)  00:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * See User talk:Wikipeedio. Jedi6  -(need help?)  03:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * 2. Will you use your administrative powers for helping Wikipedia, or for your own convenience?
 * I will always use my administrative powers to help Wikipedia. The added functions of adminship is not an award or a position of higher rank but is instead a responsibily to help clean and maintain Wikipedia as janitors. Jedi6  -(need help?)  00:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Question by Dragon&#39;s Blood
 * 1) What did Yoda mean when he said, "Remember your failure at the cave?" (Your words please, not someone elses.)
 * A Yoda was refering to the fact that Luke failed his test at the cave in Dagobah and was going to fail again by going to save Han and Leia. Like at the cave Luke was being impatient and was not having faith in the force. At the cave Luke didn't trust the force and brought weapons, thus failing his test. When Leia and Han were in trouble Luke was impatient to save his friends so he left his training with Yoda. Even though they were making sacrifices to stop the empire which could only be stopped with Luke being a full jedi.  Jedi6  -(need help?)  21:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Very good. I was looking specifically for how Luke's failure in the cave relates to the responsibility of adminship. Let me rephrase.
 * 1) How did Luke's preconceptions and fear lead to his failure in the cave and later to his near sublimation by the emperor? In the end, what action did Luke take to show that his Jedi wisdom finally caught up to his Jedi power? --Dragon&#39;s Blood 02:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * A Luke feared for Leia when Darth Vader threatened to turn her instead. This promoted Luke to attack Vader violently with the dark side. But in the end Luke realized that he could not defeat evil using evil so he refused to kill Vader. By taking the light side Luke showed his faith in the force and was able to bring his father back to the light side. In Wikipedia an administrator can't stop vandalism always by blocking and protecting but must try to resolve issues through diplomacy. Jedi6  -(need help?)  08:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree that faith had anything to do with it. In fact, blind faith is what turned the republic into an empire. Nevertheless, I am supporting your nomination and I have made more comments above. --Dragon&#39;s Blood 17:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Question by Cyde Weys:
 * 1) I'm really on the edge here. I don't know which way to vote.  I have fears that you are too focused on Star Wars stuff and not enough on the big picture.  Additionally, your definition of vandalism is kind of off.  Can you allay these fears and address these concerns?  I'd really like to vote support, but I don't know yet.
 * A Well I contribute mostly to Star Wars and Video game articles because that is what I know. Other topics I know well like science are already completed past my knowledge to help. In editing Star Wars articles I am trying to make them complete at the same time as remove fancruft, misinformation and personal opinions in the articles. Because isn't Wikipedia in the most basic sense an encyclopedia? And isn't Star Wars and video games a subject people search for? I could try to edit more rapidly to articles I know little about but how much could I add to a subject like Citroën Fukang? As for my definition of vandalism "Vandalism is any edit made in bad faith." Isn't that what Vandalism states also? I hope I have answered these concerns. Jedi6  -(need help?)  06:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) I have some follow-up questions ... let's say a user that has a short history of editing pages suddenly starts being an ass, attacking others, and reverting willy-nilly on pages (but not to the point of WP:3RR). What do you do?
 * I'd explain to the user that they need to be more mature on Wikipedia and that they can't attack other users. I will also warn them that repeated reverts even if they don't exceed 3RR are still frowned upon. If the user continues I will refer to Resolving disputes and explain it to them. If they continue to start disputes I'll will help the users involved start the negotiation step. If the user still causes disputes and continues causing problems I will suggest mediation and if that doesn't work arbitration (but only if it is very severe).  Jedi6  -(need help?)  04:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) You are made aware of a user whose contribution history pretty much entirely consists of disruptiveness, but not outright vandalism. He has been repeatedly blocked for violations of WP:3RR and WP:NPA, and in his latest edits, he's continued with more of the same.  What do you do?
 * I will warn the user that that kind of behavior is not good for Wikipedia and ask them to stop. If they violating 3RR and NPA I will block and warn them as I must. If they continue and ignore advice to stop I will go through the steps of Resolving disputes like mentioned in question #2. Jedi6  -(need help?)  04:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) When should blocks be reported to WP:ANI? What is your threshhold for reporting blocks to WP:ANI?
 * Well I wouldn't report it if it was simple and obvivious vandalism. If I had blocked a user who had repeated offenses I would report it. Also if the user was blocked for a controversial or major issue (like using sockpuppets to mess with an RfA :- I would report it. Finally I would report issues that were complex and if I needed the advice of other admins. Jedi6  -(need help?)  04:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Would you be more of a rouge admin, kicking ass and taking names, or would you be a timid admin, referring everything to other admins first and taking action only after consensus is reached?
 * It matters on the subject. If Wikipedia policy supports me or if it was like obvivous vandalism I would take care of it myself. But if it was a complex issue that Wikipedia's policy was vague or could be interpeted several ways I would get the advice of other admins. Most of the time I probably would lean toward being a rouge admin. Jedi6  -(need help?)  04:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Question by Angr:
 * 1) Do you see the role of administrator as being more comparable to that of policeman or that of janitor? Angr (talk • contribs) 10:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * A I see the role of administrator as a janitor. Administrators are supposed to use their new tools to help with maintence on Wikipedia. Helping other users and watching out for vandalism is something all users can do and is not necessarily part of being an admin. (though as a Wikipedia user you should be able to help anytime!) Jedi6  -(need help?)  03:15, 11 April 2006 (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.