Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jreferee


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

Jreferee
Final (51/23/7); Ended Tue, 27 Mar 2007 22:01:52 UTC

. One of the most spectacular editors I have encountered in my time with the project. Since joining Wikipedia in October 2006, Jreferee has made great improvements to many parts of the encyclopedia, such as WP:DYK, WP:BLPN, WP Biography Assessment Drive, article mediation and a number of articles, and has participated in many activities that admin tools would be useful for (AIV, XfD, DRV, among others). From the moment I met Jreferee in January 2007, I knew he would be a great Wikipedian, who would even be greater as an administrator. I've waited a few months to nominate Jreferee only because other users oppose admin candidates who they feel are inexperienced. I feel Jreferee has demonstrated his experience and knowledge on Wikipedia (both articles and on policy) since the time he got here. Jreferee has demonstrated a great deal of responsibility and leadership in many of the activities he participates in, such as article writing and discussion, writing a simplified DYK policy to elucidate the mysteries and intricacies behind "Did you know...", leading the effort at WPBiography Assessment Drive to launch a drive to assess as many of the 130,000+ biographical articles still in the assessment backlog (by the way, feel free to help out this great cause). Jreferee has demonstrated a thorough knowledge for policy (and some policy writing), a good deal of XfD participation and WikiProject participation and even a bigger amount of article writing. P.S. If you want to know more about Jreferee, check out his userpage (what a coincidence? I could have sworn that was my userpage.) where he has detailed many of the things he has done on Wikipedia. Without further ado, I present to you, Jreferee.  Nish kid 64  20:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Co-nom: Well, I'm a little disappointed that they went and started this without me (which is fine actually), since I'm actually against submitting co-noms after an RFA hits the floor. But I'll throw in my co-nom for Jreferee sine he's certainly deserving of the tools. He's been one of the driving forces behind the Wikiproject biography assessment drive, which encompasses over 100k articles. I wanted to nom him a while back, but figured I should wait until be had more experience (to satisfy those kinds of voters). But in the time he's been here, he's shown that he's a dedicated user on all fronts, and really shows that giving him the tools will only help Wikipedia.-- Wizardman 05:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I happily accept. -- Jreferee 23:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

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 participants:
 * Questions for the candidate
 * 1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
 * A: The new tools will help me expand on my current interests. For example, I plan to use the new tools to provide the kind of sysop assistance for the varied issues raised at the Biographies of living persons noticeboard and the  Administrators' incidents noticeboard that I have been unable to provide with non-admin tools. I have addressed vandalism whenever I've run across it in articles, have requested page protection in attempts to cool down edit wars, and plan to use the tools to address matters at Administrator intervention against vandalism and Requests for page protection. In addition, I plan to start closing XfDs and DRVs, clearing backlogs, provide sysop chores to DYK as a DYK admin participant, and take a greater leadership roll with WikiProject Biography as a WikiProject Biography admin member.


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A: I am particularly pleased with my success towards holding myself to a particular sourcing standard for articles. For many of my article contributions to Wikipedia, I have strived to provide a good number of footnotes so that others may more easily verify and/or modify my work. For these articles, I often refer back to the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article that I wrote for WikiProject Biography when I first came to Wikipedia. The articles in which I'm most happiest include Bradley Willman, Douglas A. Warner III, Disco D, and David Jack Holt. I further am pleased with the significant content expansion and the organization structure that I have provided to the Did you know project page, the WikiProject Biography Spring 2007 Assessment Drive project page, and this project's page. I also am pleased with the progress of the month long WikiProject Biography Spring 2007 Assessment Drive that I am presently am running with Mocko13 and Ozgod. (And yes, please participate! From the initial backlog of 135,345 unassessed biographies, we're down to 98,856. You can sign up here.)
 * 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 generally haven't felt stress on Wikipedia and have not really seen myself as being in any conflicts over editing. My first two months were filled with a strong desire to contribute, but confusion over what the Wikipedia experience was all about. It took me about two months before I fully embraced Consensus and Assume Good Faith to guide each of my posts. At about the same time, I was fortunate enough to also start participating in AfD, which compelled me to not only learn process, but to be able to apply it in different situations. Relying on consensus, assuming good faith, and knowing how to find a particular point of policy, guidance, or other process largely has kept me far from reaching a point where I might clash with someone. As a back up, if I feel that I have gotten personally involved in an issue, I would move on to something else and, if necessary, post a request on a noticeboard for an impartial administrator to address the matter.
 * B: (This post was made at tally (38/12/2)) - There appears to be a growing consensus that I should provide examples of my recent civil behavior as part of this AfD. In March 2007, I have had over 1,000 edits. About eight of those edits were used to deal with situations on my talk page that had the potential to cause me stress or get into heated discussion, neither of which occurred. For example, March 2, 2007: One editor came at me hard for mistakenly posting some prods. I provided a very civil response which resulted in that editor apologizing for providing a knee-jerk tone and we resolved the matter quickly. March 11, 2007: Another editor asserted that I push the use of his work in an inappropriate context, when in fact I essentially had little to no part in it.  I apologized for the situation, explained how things came about, offered my assistance in helping resolve the matter, and apologized again. I believe that as a result of my response, that editor's next response was very cordial. March 15, 2007: Another editor felt that my closing an xfd without disclosing my non-admin status raised the question of my falsely claiming to be an administrator. Such a serious accusation caused me no stress. I diffused the situation with a few civil responses and we resolved the matter quickly. That editor ended up thanking me and late remarked that his impression of me was that I was civil the entire time, seemed well-versed in policy. These characterize who I am on Wikipedia today, which is different than I during that exchange four months ago (noted below). Like other good AfD candidates, I have learned and grown from my experiences on Wikipedia. I appreciate your participation in my RfA. -- Jreferee 17:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4. (This post was made at tally (40/12/2)) A friend of mine asked me if I would consider including myself in Category:Administrators open to recall.
 * A: I do take input from others seriously and I would not have a problem with listing myself on Administrators open to recall. -- Jreferee 16:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC) (This post was made at tally (40/12/2))


 * General comments


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



Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion



Support
 * 1) Strong Support as nom.  Nish kid 64  21:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nom. Artaxiad 21:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Fully qualified candidate with an excellent record of contributions. Newyorkbrad 23:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Everything I've seen from this editor has been positive. Dekimasu よ! 23:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Strong support - great editor, appears in admin areas and very friendly, what more could you want?! (Oh yeah, knows policy too!) Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 23:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support I've been watching this user from his earliest edits and have been pleased with everything I see. I cannot see why he'd not make a good admin.  Majorly  (o rly?) 23:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Looks like a good user. Captain panda   In   vino   veritas  23:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. A respectful and patient editor in my interactions with them. --Mus Musculus 00:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. A great editor who will be a fine admin.   semper fictilis 00:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Support a good candidate --Steve (Stephen)talk 00:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Support Outstanding contribs! This is a great candidate. Katalaveno TC 00:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Real9601:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Definitely! Er rab ee 01:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support mrholybrain 's talk 01:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. WjBscribe 01:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Nishkid64 is sniffing out admin candidates and nominating them at a phenomenal rate. Great work. -- Agεθ020 ( ΔT  •  ФC ) 02:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Great contributions, clearly more than qualified. Rje 02:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support - Good answers and good edits-- SU IT  04:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support good answers, good record, and even though I haven't run into you before, I trust the nominator :) – Riana ঋ 04:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Has always shown a willingness to do the little things right. Can certainly be trusted. Pascal.Tesson 04:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. I can find nothing which leads me to believe Jreferee would do anything but good with the mop. Very qualified. ••• 日本穣 ? • Talk to Nihon joe 05:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Support Sarah 05:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Has a calm and fair disposition. Kla'quot 05:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Touchdown! I don't know what kind of referee you are; maybe you'll call "interference" on the vandals... YechielMan 06:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per Nishkid's nom. Excellent Wikipedian, would make a fine candidate. - An as  talk? 12:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Reeeealy weak support. The concerns up in the opposition section are rather troubling. However, I can see why you might say that, and we have enough admins that use a very... odd definition of AGF that someone who makes a rather slight error in judgment won't do anything more. And more admins that won't seriously damage things are a good thing. -Amarkov moo! 14:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Terence 15:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oh yeah --  FayssalF  - Wiki me up ®  15:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support noting the AGF concerns in the Oppose section, but looks like a one-off incident. Support otherwise. - Denny 16:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Yuser31415 19:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support looks okay.-- danntm T C 20:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support per Newyorkbrad. Acalamari 22:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Great work on the Biography Assessment Drive. MahangaTalk to me 23:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Brilliant Idea with the Assessment Drive HornandsoccerTalk 00:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Very Strong Supprt Has all the qualities of an admin. What can I say more?-- Pre ston  H (Sandbox) •  (Sign Here!) 02:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support -- I've reviewed the oppose comments. I think AGF has been an issue in the past but I note two important traits that mitigate this: first, Jreferee seems very thorough in carefully researching controversies. Second, he does not seem like a hothead or someone spoiling for a fight -- just a diligent conscientious editor. Add to this his excellent contributions as noted above and I think he'll be a good admin. --A. B. (talk) 04:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC) Changed to neutral. --A. B. (talk) 15:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose votes below are slight eye-openers, but I still support as co-nom. Yes, it toook me this long.-- Wizardman 13:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per above Dinojerm 21:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Good editor. I trust him. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Solid, evenhanded contributor. --Infrangible 01:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support (see my comment under "neutral") → Ed Gl  20:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. My heart and brain align. Research bears me here, songs of praise on my lips. (sorry. i'm in an poetic mindset at the moment. alternately: "A fine editor, will not abuse the tools."}  Pig mandialogue 02:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support, because I am sure that this editor has learned his/her lesson. Inkbottle 22:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support I'll forgive him for his mistakes made a year ago with CJ, and I think that the situation regarding Steven Stone was a bizarre situation in which he had more of a reason to believe that another editor was harming someone else instead of acting in good faith. While some of the techniques I saw there were not commendable, I don't see any of it here, and I have reason to believe tat Jreferee has realigned himself. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 03:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Seems like a valuable editor who has learned from past mistakes. --Ubiq 07:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) He is a fine editor:) Good luck! --James, La gloria è a dio 00:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. Wal  ton  Vivat Regina!  17:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Support This editor has shown excellent judgement on many occasions. Malla  nox  00:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Support Haven't seen you around much, but what I see is good. Keep it up! · AO Talk 01:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Support, trustworthy editor. Kjetil r 04:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) Strong support, I was surprised when I realized that Jreferee was not an administrator and even more surprised when I realized how new to the project he or she was. Talking with Jreferee on his or her talk page, I felt I was talking to someone who very civil and thoughtful. Even when we disagreed on two separate occasions, Jreferee was not seem emotional but instead seemed calm. I understand and acknowledge that other contributors have legitimate reasons to suggest Jreferee should not be an administrator. I maintain support for Jreferee, however, because I believe he or she really wants to help maintain the integrity of Wikipedia and really will be able to if he or she has the extra tools. I have already seen a lot of administrative-related (note, not administrator-related) action on Jreferee's part; heck, I didn't even know contributors who were not administrators could do some of the things I saw Jreferee doing! Some contributors suggest that Jreferee should wait a while, become more acquainted with the project, improve contributions and then re-apply for adminship; there is wisdom in these suggestions. It is unfortunate, however, that Jreferee may merely be delayed from helping Wikipedia where I believe he or she is willing and fully qualified to do so. Based on my experience with Jreferee, his or her potential to help Wikipedia and his or her indication that he or she will join administrator's open to recall, I strongly support and endorse Nishkid64's suggestion that Jreferee become a sysopèd administrator. --Iamunknown 06:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) I do not think that Jreferee will abuse the tools, and the discussion below at my previous neutral has convinced me that there's nothing else standing in the way of my support. — coe l acan — 09:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) Strong Support. I have found him to be helpful. He is a good editor with ideas. P.K.Niyogi 11:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 18) Support. --Bhadani (talk) 15:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 19) Support. Kntrabssi 18:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose Based on the user's commentary on WP:AN/I in the discussion about User:Stevenstone93. Take a look at this edit to get a good overview.  Go to incidents archive 215 to see the whole conversation.  To summarize, Jreferee makes an elaborate accusation of fraud and improper conduct against a user with whom he had never interacted, an accusation which relied on poorly interpreted "evidence."  The accused user in question has since been unblocked, and Jreferee's accusation called by another editor (not myself, though I wholeheartedly agree) "baseless."  Oh, and in the same thread, Jreferee accuses myself and User:Stevenstone93 of being "one person with two identities."  If you are going to accuse one user of defamation of a university professor -- oh yeah, a university professor who has not yet been proven to actually exist -- and another of sockpuppetry (and by extension defamation), then I think you should maybe have some reliable evidence.  Not a person I want having the power to block me or anyone, or really do anything a normal user can't do.  -- Tractor  kings  fan  06:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Stevenstone93 and the living person behind Internet Steven Suttles Stone both (1) identify themselves as Steven Suttles Stone, (2) identify themselves with Stevenstone93, and (3) sign their names with " Steven Suttles Stone Corporation LTD." From this, I concluded that Stevenstone93 appeared to be holding himself out as Internet Steven Suttles Stone. Internet Steven Suttles Stone states that he is a Commercial Pilot, from the University of California Davis (UC Davis), and was identified as a UC Davis Professor. Stevenstone93 used his user page to assert that the living person behind Internet Steven Suttles Stone was a 14 year old boy who is racist and anti-homosexual. Even if Internet Steven Suttles Stone is a persona, it is not appropriate to use a Wikipedia user page to liable living persons who chose to use personas. Stevenstone93's user page then was blocked for (i) racist, homophobic, and other polemical statements; (ii) suspicions that he was impersonating another individual, and (iii) for using his Wikipedia account only as a webspace. GeneralSSSC 1993 and SSSCLimitedTrademark. were blocked as sockpuppets of Stevenstone93. Stevenstone93 user page then was unblocked with a reason given that Stevenstone93 deserves a second chance. -- Jreferee 17:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the two people you speak of, "internet" and "user," are clearly the same person, and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. It is simply this user on other sites.  The user has expressed interest in being a commercial pilot, has a habit of referring to himself by nicknames, and I have found no evidence that the so-called "living person" was ever "identified as a UC Davis Professor."  No record of such a professor on UC Davis websites.  The suspicions that he was impersonating another individual only ever came from you, and your interpretation of the diffs you provided to back it up was, according to myself and other users, flawed.  Those are my firm beliefs on the subject, and I'll let it go at that to avoid making undue hassle on this Rfa.  Thank you, -- Tractor  kings  fan  18:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I truly am sorry for implying that Stevenstone93 and you were the same person. Your referring to as an unnecessary and unfounded insertion into an otherwise cogent argument was right in that it was unnecessary and unfounded, but nevertheless generous (to me) in that it was not a cogent argument. I intermixed facts and opinions to provide various statements, several of which turned out be unlikely or wrong. Another error I made was to provide analysis and opinion on the noticeboard as the initial post instead of just giving notice of the incident so that it may be discussed. Stevenstone93 has been with Wikipedia since January 26, 2007 and others who initiated posts regarding Stevenstone93 in the three months since that time - January 26, 2007 AIV • January 26, 2007 Wikipedia talk:Copyrights • February 23, 2007 Wikiquette alerts • March 14 2007 MfD/User:Stevenstone93 • March 16, 2007 Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Stevenstone93 - were able to do so without needlessly sensational language and without becoming a subject of the discussion. I did not set up a basis for discussion but presented the post to generate some immediate attention, which was improper. I do appreciate all the feedback from yourself and others and will use it to help me improve how I participate in Wikipedia. Again, I am sorry for raising unfounded doubt against you. -- Jreferee 17:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You are forgiven entirely, please see your talk page for a more personal message. -- Tractor  kings  fan  21:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Despite the candidate's assurance in his answer to Q3, the above comment suggests to me that the candidate still does not fully grasp the concept of assuming good faith, something which (in my view) he has failed to do on other occasions, as in an exchange I had with him over his part in a dispute late last year. I don't feel the candidate is yet ready for adminship.--cj | talk 08:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I joined Wikipedia in October 2006. That intervention over civil behavior by a variety of editors, including myself, occurred in November 2006 when I still was a newcomer to Wikipedia and my perspectives of how things should be handled inside Wikipedia largely were from outside of Wikipedia. As I mentioned in Q3, my first two months were filled with a strong desire to contribute, but confusion over what the Wikipedia experience was all about. By December 2006, I felt that I needed to do something to better understand what the Wikipedia experience was all about. Learning more about Wikipedia policy, guidance, etc. while  participating in AfD and other processes has given me an understanding about Wikipedia that I did not have back in November 2006. As a result of refocusing my participation on Wikipeida, I came to embraced Consensus and Assume Good Faith to guide each of my posts. Since November 2006, I have become familiar with a variety of processes from which to handle different situations, which has helped me strive to act in a way that assumes that most people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. I do regret my part in how that situation was handled in November 2006. With the knowledge and experience I have gained since that time, I strive to handle things much differently.-- Jreferee 15:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I can accept that. However, with the recent event pointed out by Tractor and others, I'm not confident that you're there just yet. --cj | talk 02:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That does mean a lot to me. You were just trying to help me out and I responded defensively. Although I did not act on it at that time, it was your advise that largely lead me down a more correct path and I really am a better person for it both on and off Wikipedia. -- Jreferee 03:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If Rebecca reverted your edits to Leisha Harvey today instead of last November, what would you do differently? What do you think would be a better way to handle the disagreement? Kla'quot 07:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for asking this question, Kla'quot. My objection back the was (i) the use of the edit summary "revert mostly worthless edits" and (ii) the sweeping reversion of all my edits, when in fact we later agreed that at least some of my edits were appropriate. To address my concerns over behavior, I probably would add a kind note to see whether I could help diffuse any tension or hurt feelings created over my initially placing edits in the article. As noted above in Q3, I'm sure I now could do this in two to three edit exchanges. As for the content, I long have seen such situations as a difference of opinion between two editors for which no consensus or agreement had developed. In other words, I now see that we both were right but there was no consensus or agreement to move forward. She was maintaining the article (not me) and, in my view, that gives her opinion on content more weight over my own opinion absent any agreement or consensus. If I wanted to pursue the content matter, I would try to work to develop an agreement or consensus on the article talk page. However, unlike back in November 2006, I now have so much content on Wikipedia that I do not feel strongly enough about any one of my content changes to an article to seek such a consensus. I do use the agreement/consensus technique to help others mediate their disputes, however. See, for example, March 21, 2007. -- Jreferee 19:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. The user has made some poorly researched accusations against a fellow editor (see Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive215) which used needlessly sensational language.  I don't have faith in the ability of this user to correctly interpret evidence and I think his communication skills are poor. —Psychonaut 19:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. I don't see how it can possibly productive to refer to a 14-year old as "racist and anti-homosexual", irrespective of the facts. We're in a public forum here, and one that is designed to exist indefinitely into the future. A far more productive approach could have been taken in dealing with young teenager who is clearly acting with the worldview of a young teenager. Based on the support you have garnered, I do not expect that this vote will scuttle your path to adminship. However, I do expect that it will bring you to think about what we can do to cultivate contributors who may be with us for many years to come. Cheers!  bd2412  T 02:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. The examples of conduct presented by cj, including this awkward reply leave me very sceptical. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 03:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) The above casts significant doubt on this nomination.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  12:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose per Radiant and others. Michael 19:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Per BD - NYC JD (interrogatories) 19:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose - I agree with Kncyu38. You have to be above that sort of thing if you're going to be an admin. Mind you, I think that Rebecca (one of your sparring partners) should learn the same lesson. - Richard Cavell 00:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Changed to strong oppose after more review, in addition to Kncyu's diff. Yes, other people were bad too, but that doesn't excuse what you did. -Amarkov moo! 01:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose After reading the answer to question 3 and then comparing it to the difs of the oppose votes, I think you need to put some more time between them and this process while putting into practise what you expressed in your answers. Gnangarra 13:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose Answer to question three leaves doubts as to your experience with dispute resolution. Q3 is your opertinuty to show how well you handled disputes in the past. I am also a little concerned about issues meantioned above. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Since my initial response to a post usually is civil, I do not think I have been in enough quarrels to show how I handle them. However, I just posted examples above in Q3.B of how I diffuse situations that potentially could be stressful or potentially lead to edit conflicts. -- Jreferee 17:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Some serious and justifiable concerns have been raised.--Taxwoman 18:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Still defending bad judgement in the Stevenstone93 incident, even on this RFA. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-25 00:50Z 
 * 3) Oppose per Radiant.--Runcorn 12:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose - too many examples of dubious judgment. Does that make him a bad editor? No, but I think he's one of those editors who needs a bit more time and experience before we'd be wise to give him extra buttons. I'd like to see the exercise repeated in another couple of months and see whether he has been able to edit actively and with good judgment. Metamagician3000 13:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose for now - come back later please.--Osidge 22:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:POINT comment by User:Qxz removed. El_C 01:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per several of the points above - potentially a good candidate, but too flawed at present.--Holdenhurst 21:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose He may or may not be a spectacular editor, but admin isn't a reward for being a good editor.--Brownlee 22:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose at this time. Another few months' activity and I'll reconsider.  Tom e rtalk  23:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose for now, with a recommendation that the applicant come forward again in a few months' time. CJCurrie 23:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose per Radiant. Dionyseus 06:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose per Metamagician3000 and CJCurrie--R613vlu 12:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) The above developments concerning the oppose votes have placed me to neutral. Real96 01:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral. I looked through all of the comments and the oppose reasoning and yet can't really reach a conclusion.  The best I can determine is that the user would probably make a good admin, but may need a little more time to demonstrate that.  However, since the opposition seems to all center around a single extended dispute that occurred early in the nominee's wikilife, I don't see enough here to either support or oppose at this time.  I would normally just not leave any comment, but since I spent the better part of an hour looking through everything, I wanted to at least record my indecision. :-) —Doug Bell talk 15:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I can appreciate your position, Doug, which I believe is similar to Richard Cavell's position - You have to be above that sort of thing if you're going to be an admin. I assure you that today, I am well above how I interacted with others during that event four months ago. I think that I have gained a positive, trusting reputation from many of those who I have worked with. However, some of them are learning about this four month old event for the first time and this may have put them on the fence about even participating in my RfA. If you want to know how I have been interacting with others in the past three or four months, please go through my talk page. A few posted on my talk page with potential for quarrels and/or stress, but within a few exchanges, I was able to bring the situations to that of a reasonable discussions. Most posts, however, are thanks for the help I've given. -- Jreferee 16:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral changed to support. Has wrongly placed prod tags on biographical articles that were either not uncontoversial (in which case should have been put on AfD instead) or just plain notable (see especially User talk:Jreferee/Archive 6). However, this user is great to talk to, kind, humble, all that good stuff. Although I feel (with all due respect) he likes to "over-prod," he is a great user and is otherwise deserving to be an administrator. I trust he as already made the proper corrections in his editing style and he continues to be a great editor, with or without "the mop." Good luck on adminship, Jreferee! → Ed Gl  17:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Those few prods were the first time I used prod, all done within a single two hour or so session while I was assessing the class of articles for the WPBiography template. Those that should have been merge tag instead of prod were quickly addressed, and yes, I immediately made the proper corrections to my use of prod once I discovered my error. I've used prod about twice since that time. In the six months I've been on Wikipedia and the 5,000+, I do not think I've used prod more than 15 or so times. I do appreciate your comments and thanks for the wishes for good luck. : ) -- Jreferee 18:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, so now I get the impression that this was an isolated incident that has now been corrected. Since you probably won't do much deletion-related work as an administrator, and since you seem trustworthy, I have no problem changing to support. → Ed  Gl  20:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral. Good user but I'm not sufficiently convinced he's ready for adminship. --kingboyk 17:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral Jreferee is a great user but I don't think the community is ready for him as an admin yet. Cbrown1023 talk</b> 22:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose.  In November 2006, Jreferee apparently misinterpreted the CA.gov Web site's left-side navigation bar (as it existed at that time) as actually corresponding to the structure of the government of the state of California and created a big mess in Government of California as well as eight nonsense articles describing eight agencies that simply do not exist.  It is all right for novice editors to be a little uncivil (I have had problems with the civility policy myself as was noted in the arbitration over User:Ericsaindon2), but Jreferee's insertion of several thousand bytes into the encyclopedia about eight nonexistent agencies (whose nonexistence could have been easily verified with a Google search) is so egregious as to amount to gross incompetence, if not outright vandalism.  Unfortunately, all of the editors who track the Government of California article, myself included, were too busy with work or with fighting vandals on other articles to notice this issue until now (I caught it half an hour ago).  At this time, in my opinion, Jreferee has not shown that he/she has adequate experience with or understanding of Verifiability to properly carry out the duties of an administrator. --Coolcaesar 09:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC) Neutral.  Jreferee has responded to my concerns in a courteous and professional manner so I am changing my vote and I no longer oppose his request.  However, I cannot support it either because Jreferee is still a little too new.  Most good admins in my experience have had at least six straight months of high-quality edits before they were nominated.  --Coolcaesar 06:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * My change to the article was meant to help move the article forward. In November 2006, the official state website arranged many of the 500+ agencies, departments, and commissions into eight categories. I apologize for not clarifying that in the article back in November 2006. The official state website subsequently was revised in or before March 2007 to remove these eight categories. Given the publicized nature of even the categorizing the 500+ agencies, departments, and commissions in California, this seems relevant to the article. After seeing your post here, I spent the next ten minutes revising my California state government posts from that time. I believe that the recent changes I made to the government proper section of article have clarified the official state website's involvement in categorizing the agencies, departments, and commissions. If you think other modifications are necessary, please feel free to contact me or make the changes. -- Jreferee 15:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) I'm reluctantly changing my vote from Support. I am sure you would do excellent work as an administrator. However, I am concerned that you might make careless blocks or admonishments, which could do damage to people who are less thick-skinned than you. Tractorkingsfan's summary of the Steven Stone incident is probably correct, so you should have apologized to both him and SSS by now. In your defense, it wasn't you who placed the indef block, your initial misreading of the situation was understandable, this kind of situation does not arise frequently, and most importantly, you obviously weren't bringing this up to gain advantage in a content dispute. However, it is troubling that you haven't acknowledged your mistakes regarding the incident. Kla'quot 06:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Reluctant neutral (switched from support). I think Jreferee is an excellent editor and will make an excellent (not just a good) admin some day. There are, however, a class of editors with strong personalities and excellent research skills that need more time than many others to develop as admins. I number myself in this group; I think I finally "get it" but sometimes I still have to keep chanting "AGF" as a mantra when I see what looks at first to be open-and-shut boneheaded behavior. I sense you may be also be in this category and I suggest you come back in 3 months if this RfA does not succeed. If it does succeed, I encourage you tread lightly at first. In any event, good luck. --A. B. (talk) 15:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral: the XfD that Jreferee mentions in answer Q3B was improperly closed. SNOW or not, Deletion process does say "Non-administrators may not "speedy-close" deletion discussions. They must either express their view that the debate should be "speedy-closed" in the normal procedure, or wait until the discussion has run the full AfD period to close it as a "keep" if there is a consensus to do so." Non-admins closing XfDs often raises confusion for people noticing it the first time, and so it's especially important that it's done carefully by policy. I would expect a non-admin closer to have a clear knowledge of the process that was being used. This is not certainly not a strong enough reason to oppose, but I feel it precludes my support at this time. I am not as concerned about the Stevenstone93 issue as other seem to be. Things that come up at ANI get a lot of eyes. One person's mistake there, if this was a mistake, is likely enough to be worked out to a desirable conclusion by the input of many. — coe l acan — 18:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Background (posted at tally = (43/21/8)): The issue regarding non-admin SNOW closing of XdDs started on my talk page by another editor. After realizing that we both had different views on a related issue, I moved the discussion to deletion process SNOW as part of a larger discussion regarding Non-administrators closing discussions - Notification proposal to get more input. Both issues brought up several views (SNOW brought up views such as non admins may not ignore all rules is an odd position, instruction creep, there isn't a such thing as an appropriate SNOW close, its OK if the SNOW closure is truly uncontroversial, etc.) and raised some other issues. I included this statement as part of this RfA so that months from now I'll have a better idea of the context for my action. -- Jreferee 23:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it's obvious that you've taken these concerns seriously before I even raised them. For the record, I don't think that IAR applies here at all, because I don't think that waiting a little while prevents you from improving or maintaining the encyclopedia. But in choosing admins, I feel it is most desirable to have thoughtful people who recognize that their choices may be controversial and then seek community input. You've done that. I disagree with your initial action but your query to the community is more important. I'm changing to support. — coe l acan — 09:34, 27 March 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.