Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Jbmurray

Edit count for Jbmurray
User:Jbmurray

run at Sat May 10 10:16:07 2008 GMT

Category talk:        6 Category:             334 Image:                28 Mainspace             5339 MediaWiki talk:       3 Portal:               4 Talk:                 1127 Template talk:        5 Template:             104 User talk:            929 User:                 290 Wikipedia talk:       243 Wikipedia:            998 avg edits per page    4.72 earliest              04:11, 1 May 2007 number of unique pages 1995 total                 9410

2007/5  2768 2007/6   863 2007/7   13 2007/8   2 2007/9   13 2007/10  2 2007/11  0 2007/12  0 2008/1   178 2008/2   244 2008/3   1750 2008/4   2797 2008/5   780

(green denotes edits with an edit summary (even an automatic one), red denotes edits without an edit summary)

Mainspace 228 El Se�or Presidente 211 The General in His Labyrinth 204 Mario Vargas Llosa 193 I, the Supreme 146 Miguel �ngel Asturias 130 Facundo 127 Augusto Roa Bastos 124 Latin American Boom 115 Dictator novel 115 List of Latin American writers 107 The Feast of the Goat 107 Domingo Faustino Sarmiento 99 Gabriel Garc�a M�rquez 85 Che Guevara 82 List of Latin American artists

Talk: 117 Mario Vargas Llosa 110 El Se�or Presidente 71 The General in His Labyrinth 53 Facundo 48 Domingo Faustino Sarmiento 37 Gabriel Garc�a M�rquez 36 Augusto Roa Bastos 36 I, the Supreme 33 Miguel �ngel Asturias 33 List of Puerto Ricans 31 Dictator novel 31 Latin America 29 The Feast of the Goat 21 Che Guevara 19 Dirty Dancing

Category talk: 4 South American writers

Category: 11 Latin American literature 9 South American writers 9 Spanish-language writers 8 South American writer stubs 8 Latin American writers 5 South American culture 4 Latin American cinema 4 Paraguayan writers 4 Cinema of Brazil 4 Mayanists 4 Nicaraguan writers 4 Panamanian writers 4 Ecuadorian literature 3 Caribbean literature 3 Guatemalan writers

Image: 4 El senor presidente 3rded.jpg 4 Asturias president.jpg 3 Radio Venceremos Reconstruction.jpg 2 Museo Revolution.jpg 2 Treinta y tres monument.jpg 2 El senor presidente.gif 2 Perquin mural.jpg 2 Garcia marquez general.jpg

MediaWiki talk: 3 Spam-blacklist

Template: 54 Dictator Novel Grading 14 MuMaMa 7 Latin America topic 6 Dictator Novel Grading Initial 6 Latin America topic/doc 2 Nothanks-sd 2 Gabriel Garc�a M�rquez 2 Peruarts 2 Paraguay-writer-stub

Template talk: 2 WPPoetry

User: 137 Jbmurray 91 Jbmurray/Madness 35 Jbmurray/Sandbox 7  Jbmurray/Advice 6  Jbmurray/monobook.js 4   Globalecon/African Diamond Mines 3  Hjames19/South Africa's Termination of Pregnancy Amendment Act 2  Tony1/FAR urgents

User talk: 276 Jbmurray 37 SandyGeorgia 17 Geometry guy 17 Morsini 16 Lincolnchan98 15 Mfreud 14 Awadewit 13 AlexCovarrubias 12 Gadfium 11 EyeSerene 11 Eshiu 10 XLR8TION 10 Reabell 10 Yomangan 9  Tyrael15

Wikipedia: 392 WikiProject Murder Madness and Mayhem 37 Wikipedia Signpost/2008-05-02/Dispatches 36 Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 14 31 Wikipedia Signpost/2008-05-09/Dispatches 27 Featured article candidates/Mario Vargas Llosa 24 Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents 23 Featured article candidates/The General in His Labyrinth 22 WikiProject EduTech 22 Featured article candidates/Hillary Rodham Clinton 20 Good article nominations 17 WikiProject Featured articles/FA-Team/Mission Proposals 14 Featured article candidates/El Se�or Presidente 14 Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 20 12 Featured article candidates/Getting It: The psychology of est 11 Featured article candidates/Rufus Wilmot Griswold

Wikipedia talk: 106 WikiProject Featured articles/FA-Team/Mission 1 25 WikiProject Murder Madness and Mayhem 18 Good articles 13 WikiProject Featured articles/FA-Team 10 Overcategorization 8  WikiProject EduTech 6  WikiProject Films/Style guidelines 6  Featured content dispatch workshop 5  WikiProject Global Economics 4  WikiProject Featured articles/FA-Team/Analysis 4  WikiProject Central America 4  Good article reassessment 4  WikiProject South America 4  WikiProject Mesoamerica 3  WikiProject Classroom coordination

If there were any problems, please email Interiot or post at User talk:Interiot . Based directly on these URLs: [1], [2]


 * The edit count was retrieved from this link at 10:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC).

User:Elonka's oppose

 * 1) Oppose.  I think that Jbmurray's university project was a great idea, I enjoyed reading his essay, and I am a big supporter of getting more academics involved with Wikipedia.  However, those reasons aren't enough to support someone for adminship.  One key reason to oppose, is simply that I don't see him needing the tools.  This nom seems to be more of a case of awarding a "prize", than giving tools to someone who actively needs them.  Also, and of more concern, when I was recently in a conflict with Jbmurray about the Dirty Dancing article, I was not impressed with his on-wiki communication skills. I found him short-tempered, dismissive, and quick to blame, in ways that escalated a dispute rather than de-escalating it. I also have strong concerns about his involvement with the FA process, because of the growing cliquishness on the part of some of the senior FA reviewers, and the often arbitrary and frequently trivial reasons that are given for opposing the promotion of an article.  I'm not going to go into details about my concerns about the FA reviewing process here, because this isn't the right venue.  However, I do realize that by my opposing Jbmurray's adminship, I may well be diminishing or even destroying any chance that I have of getting another article through the FA political hoops. There's also another issue here, which has to do with WP:CIVIL. There is a disturbing trend on Wikipedia, that when someone is an article-writer, the culture often overlooks some very serious behavioral problems, specifically as regards civility and personal attacks. This problem is bad enough when dealing with a regular editor, but to have another short-tempered admin, would be a very bad idea.  And to have a group of uncivil admins, who support each other in their attacks on other editors, especially editors who are trying to get articles to FA?  I think that would be an even worse thing for Wikipedia, because that puts too much power into the hands of too few people. In short, I just don't think that Jbmurray handles conflict well, I don't think he would handle the "power" of adminship responsibly, I don't think he sets a good example of how a Wikipedian should act, and I don't want to see yet another uncivil admin FA reviewer.  I do have respect for some of the articles that Jbmurray and his students have created.  But I cannot in good conscience support him for administrator at this time. --Elonka 22:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You are most certainly entitled to an opinion on the matter and I doubt that your oppose will have any effect on any future FA, ast least I should hope not. As for him not needing the tools, I presume you read: "occasionally blocking vandals, for instance, and deleting pages. And admin tools are fairly often required to help the Featured Article director's delegate and others who are involved in the review processes." - even though he won't use them all the time like some administrators, he will use them, and he'll use them responsibly as far as I can tell. Regarding this Dirty Dancing incident, after viewing that section and the talk messages you two have exchanged, I don't think he's shown anything that would lessen his ability to make a good administrator. Everyone has a short fuse every now and then, I don't think we can expect our administrators to be inhuman in that sense.
 * As I mentioned before, you re entirely welcome to your opinion in this RfA but I honestly haven't seen any reason to oppose. Perhaps you'd like to show us some specific diffs to support your claims? Regards, CycloneNimrod Talk? 23:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Since you have passingly mentioned your concerns about the FA review process and possible politics/cliqueishness, can you provide a link where you are pursuing those concerns, for ongoing review? Failing that, specify your concerns with regards to JBM in particular, since you are raising them in the context of his RFA request rather than in a general policy area? Thanks! Franamax (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As near as I can tell, it's at Talk:Dirty Dancing and User talk:Jbmurray. Was there also a conversation elsewhere that I couldn't find?  Because I see absolutely nothing in either thread that corresponds with Elonka's description of Jbmurray's attitude. Also, as an afterthought, I think "doesn't need the tools" has been pretty much deprecated as an oppose rationale, and in this case I don't think it's really true. --barneca (talk) 23:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I can't see anything wrong with Jbmurray's responses on the Dirty Dancing talk page - Elonka can you please provide the diffs that you find problematic? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I mentioned above that I would let other editors judge how I managed this conflict. At present, there are only traces of the interaction between Elonka and myself, as she withdrew many of her comments--and in return I also withdrew my responses--after some prompting by other editors.  However, you can see the relevant thread on my talk page (skip down to "Dirty Dancing") and Talk:Dirty Dancing (skip to the threads "Sources" and "Why the Sources should be Improved").  (All the discussion on her talk page was merely carried over from mine.)  I should say that I was most taken aback by these diffs , in which Elonka chose to edit my talk page comments directly; those diffs should also indicate, I think, what the heart of the matter was for her.
 * All I'll say in addition, is that I was asked to help on the article, did so in good faith, and was repeatedly and rather brusquely accused of incivility. I was also accused of making personal attacks etc., when at all times I was commenting on the content rather than the contributor, as per WP:NPA, to which Elonka wished to refer me.  I would maintain that at no point was I incivil; and certainly at no point did I make any personal attacks.  And despite our differences, I have continued to offer my help with the article (for which, incidentally, I see I am the fourth major contributor, even with the very light copy-edit on which I embarked).
 * Meanwhile, I'm sorry that Elonka is frustrated with the FA process. Personally, I think that, though it has its ups and downs like all such processes, it is really pretty good, and I welcome her (and indeed any other editors') contributions if they wish to improve it, by commenting on candidates and reviews.  I do not agree with the implication that my observations were trivial; they referred rather to one of the core principles of the encyclopedia.
 * But I appreciate that I will probably not persuade Elonka. And I'm glad, if that means that I don't get a 100% clean sweep at this RfA.  Nobody's perfect, least of all me.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * In response to some of the other questions here, I realize that it's a bit difficult to follow, because my conversations with Jbmurray took place on multiple pages, and all the current conversations on the related talkpages look civil. That is because I had already expressed concerns about Jbmurray's language, at one point tried to refactor some of his comments, but he then reverted me and put the comments back on the page, telling me I wasn't allowed to change his posts without permission.  So I opted to just delete all of my own responses on multiple pages.  At which point he finally decided to back down and deleted his own comments. For those who are interested in more details, I'll do my best to offer a few more diffs, though I realize that it's a somewhat futile gesture at this point with my lone oppose.  But, since I have been asked for details, I will provide them.  Basically, it became clear to me during my discussion with Jbmurray over the Dirty Dancing article, that Jbmurray does not yet understand one of the core elements of dispute resolution on Wikipedia, the necessity of "commenting on content and not the contributor."  He also took actions which I felt escalated a dispute rather than de-escalating it, such as his (original) section header at Talk:Dirty Dancing, a classic example of incivility, "Why the poor sources make for a poor article" (especially when made on an article that was already at GA status).  When, I pointed it out he did offer that I could change it, so I did so, and took the opportunity to refactor other comments of his which I felt were unhelpful, since they had referred to "the editor(s) rather than the article." However, he then reverted me, putting the incivility and personal comments back, and compounding things by on multiple occasions repeating the "poor article" statement which I had expressed concerns about in the first place. He also accused me of incivility and personal attacks.  And lastly, what continues to confirm my original impression that he is not yet ready for adminship, is his above comment here at his RfA, arguing with my oppose, and showing that he still doesn't "get it". He still says that he was "commenting on the content rather than the contributor", he still cannot acknowledge that he may have said anything uncivil, or anything that might be regarded as an attack. It seems that he is either unwilling or unable to grasp this core concept of Wikipedia communication.  It's one thing to make a mistake, learn from it, and move on.  It's another to make a mistake, but then continue to insist that you never did anything wrong. It is my feeling that that kind of "refusing to back down" demeanor, in an individual with access to administrator tools, is a recipe for trouble. --Elonka 04:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi. We seem to be providing the same diffs, on the whole.  It might make it easier if you could provide a single one in which I was commenting on the contributor rather than the content?  I'd be more than happy to reconsider and to apologize.  This is not to win your support.  (Again, I recognize that you are unlikely to be persuaded, and I'm happy for that to be the case.)  It is so I can learn.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Elonka, saying something is a poor article is not incivil, especially when the reasons (poor sources) are given. I'm worried here that you have mischaracterised what happened. What you have said makes it sounds like there was really bad incivility here. Indeed, I went looking for this incivility. As it happens, the most I can find is use of the word "poor", and that was about the article, not you. You said that he was "short-tempered, dismissive, and quick to blame", but I don't see that anywhere in the discussions linked here, even the old versions of those discussions. What I do see is an over-reaction on your part. My reading of what happened is that the comments "the article reads like a fansite" and the suggestion of "going to a library, checking out books, improving the sources" seem to have upset you. You assumed that Jbmurray should have known "who you were" (that you are capable of carrying out detailed research like this), and got affronted when he gave you honest advice based purely on the article as it stood when he saw it. You should be welcoming such honest criticism. I would like to quote what Karancs said: "'His comments are not meant as a personal attack on you; even the best contributors sometimes need help seeing what to do with their favorite articles. Bringing an article to FA status is hard work, and sometimes it is harder to do in a group setting than it is by yourself. Please take the comments in the good faith they were offered, and see them as an opportunity to improve the article, not an attack on you.'" From what I can see, jbmurray offered you a lot of good advice, and you took affront at that. An example of the good advice is "'As it happens, however, this is a film that has been fairly extensively discussed in the critical literature on 1980s film and music. This could be a featured article, an example of 'our very best work,' if a bit of effort went into it. Now, the precise effects on the article of doing that work would be unpredictable: you could only know once you'd read the sources. Above all, however, it would serve to contextualize the film: at present context is dealt with symptomatically only under the rubric of 'pre-production' whereas 'Legacy' (even after I took out some real trivia) remains on the order of 'where are they now?" I see nothing incivil about the advice Jbmurray gave you, or the way he handled your affront. Possibly he should have been less dismissive with the "if a bit of effort went into it" comment and done more to acknowledge the work done so far (though in fairness the article does need quite a bit more effort to reach FA standard - that is a brutal but honest assessment). Given the context, in the midst of a lot of useful advice, it would have been best for you to swallow your pride and gratefully accept the advice given. Furthermore, arguing with opposes at RfA is a mistake that many people make, and it is usually only those that hang out at RfA, or who are coached to pass RfA, that realise they need to avoid this. Jbmurray's latest answer is'' short and sweet. Would you consider dropping this matter here and taking this somewhere else, or keeping your reply short as well? BTW, Jbmurray, you can link directly to sections in old page versions as well, like this and this. No need to ask people to "skip down". Carcharoth (talk) 08:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with Carcharoth - I don't see incivility. It can be very tricky giving constructive criticism in these cases. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Not a single diff you have provided, Elonka, shows any incivility or a personal attack towards you. Every single diff instead shows someone trying to stay on topic (about bad sources making bad articles) and I see nothing wrong with that. He clarified on several occasions that this wasn't about you, it was about the article, so I don't see how any of it could be a "personal attack". Anyway, as you've said, I doubt this oppose will make any difference to the outcome of the RfA. Jbmurray is an excellent editor and I have no doubt he'll make a sincerely good administrator, too. Regards, CycloneNimrod Talk? 12:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Elonka, saying something is a poor article is not incivil, especially when the reasons (poor sources) are given. I'm worried here that you have mischaracterised what happened. What you have said makes it sounds like there was really bad incivility here. Indeed, I went looking for this incivility. As it happens, the most I can find is use of the word "poor", and that was about the article, not you. You said that he was "short-tempered, dismissive, and quick to blame", but I don't see that anywhere in the discussions linked here, even the old versions of those discussions. What I do see is an over-reaction on your part. My reading of what happened is that the comments "the article reads like a fansite" and the suggestion of "going to a library, checking out books, improving the sources" seem to have upset you. You assumed that Jbmurray should have known "who you were" (that you are capable of carrying out detailed research like this), and got affronted when he gave you honest advice based purely on the article as it stood when he saw it. You should be welcoming such honest criticism. I would like to quote what Karancs said: "'His comments are not meant as a personal attack on you; even the best contributors sometimes need help seeing what to do with their favorite articles. Bringing an article to FA status is hard work, and sometimes it is harder to do in a group setting than it is by yourself. Please take the comments in the good faith they were offered, and see them as an opportunity to improve the article, not an attack on you.'" From what I can see, jbmurray offered you a lot of good advice, and you took affront at that. An example of the good advice is "'As it happens, however, this is a film that has been fairly extensively discussed in the critical literature on 1980s film and music. This could be a featured article, an example of 'our very best work,' if a bit of effort went into it. Now, the precise effects on the article of doing that work would be unpredictable: you could only know once you'd read the sources. Above all, however, it would serve to contextualize the film: at present context is dealt with symptomatically only under the rubric of 'pre-production' whereas 'Legacy' (even after I took out some real trivia) remains on the order of 'where are they now?" I see nothing incivil about the advice Jbmurray gave you, or the way he handled your affront. Possibly he should have been less dismissive with the "if a bit of effort went into it" comment and done more to acknowledge the work done so far (though in fairness the article does need quite a bit more effort to reach FA standard - that is a brutal but honest assessment). Given the context, in the midst of a lot of useful advice, it would have been best for you to swallow your pride and gratefully accept the advice given. Furthermore, arguing with opposes at RfA is a mistake that many people make, and it is usually only those that hang out at RfA, or who are coached to pass RfA, that realise they need to avoid this. Jbmurray's latest answer is'' short and sweet. Would you consider dropping this matter here and taking this somewhere else, or keeping your reply short as well? BTW, Jbmurray, you can link directly to sections in old page versions as well, like this and this. No need to ask people to "skip down". Carcharoth (talk) 08:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with Carcharoth - I don't see incivility. It can be very tricky giving constructive criticism in these cases. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Not a single diff you have provided, Elonka, shows any incivility or a personal attack towards you. Every single diff instead shows someone trying to stay on topic (about bad sources making bad articles) and I see nothing wrong with that. He clarified on several occasions that this wasn't about you, it was about the article, so I don't see how any of it could be a "personal attack". Anyway, as you've said, I doubt this oppose will make any difference to the outcome of the RfA. Jbmurray is an excellent editor and I have no doubt he'll make a sincerely good administrator, too. Regards, CycloneNimrod Talk? 12:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * (Elonka's reply to above comments) I agree that there is no "smoking gun" here. I did not mean to imply that Jbmurray's comments were egregiously uncivil.  But I do still find it somewhat disturbing that he is unable to recognize the problem with what he did say, while at the same time he was accusing me of incivility and personal attacks. I would ask for Jbmurray to supply diffs of where he felt that I was engaging in personal attacks, but he was not. Instead, Jbmurray, and his supporters, are banding together with a demeanor of "Jbmurray didn't do anything wrong, Elonka just took it wrong."
 * I do understand that in RfAs, people often oppose for personal reasons, or to seek revenge for older disputes. I hope that those who know me and my work, realize that this is not my style.  I am speaking in good faith here, pointing out a problem that I perceive.  If no one else perceives it (or if no one else is willing to speak up about it), so be it.
 * To be clear about my concerns: It is my perception, that some FA reviewers belittle editors and their work, and the community either regards it as "okay", or allows them to get away with it for other reasons. Regardless of the reason behind it, I disagree with the procedure of being dismissive of other editors. I feel that a more civil demeanor is a better way to encourage good editing.  In the case of this particular article, Dirty Dancing, I felt that when Jbmurray referred to this Good Article as a "poor article" simply because he disagreed with the kind of sources being used, that he was being uncivil. WP:CIVIL specifically mentions things that can contribute to an uncivil environment, such as a "judgmental tone" or "belittling editors".  A specific example given is that of an edit summary such as "snipped rambling crap", which is a mild form of incivility.  For Jbmurray to make a section header saying that something was a "poor article" was uncivil, but what was worse was when I pointed out to him that I had trouble with his language, and he kept repeating it.  I felt that was uncivil as well.  When he framed his arguments as, "Elonka isn't keen about improving the references," I felt that was "commenting on the contributor" as well as an assumption of bad faith and a (mild) personal attack.  When he referred to the article as "sounding like a fansite" it was dismissive.  When he referred to a wide class of articles as being "created by fans", it was again uncivil, and was making an (incorrect) assumption about the motivation (at least on my part) for working on the article.  When he sprinkled comments with opinions about what I was or wasn't feeling, or what I did or didn't take "umbrage" to, that too was a personally-targeted comment.  It's a mild form of attack, but it's an attack nonetheless, and it is not helpful towards the goal of improving the article. Making negative assumptions about someone's mental state or work ethic, are usually not going to motivate them to work harder. Better would have been if Jbmurray could have focused strictly on constructive comments about the article, rather than about me. If he would have avoided negative adjectives and personal comments, I would not have had a problem with his criticism.
 * A bit more about my own background: Off-wiki, I am a professional writer, and a professional copyeditor. I not only am paid to write, I am sought out to copyedit other people's work. I am a senior editor on industry white papers.  Even among my friends and casual associates, people routinely refer to me as "the best proofreader they know."  I am comfortable that I am a good writer, and an excellent researcher.  And yet, on Wikipedia, some reviewers (such as Jbmurray) seem to feel that they have the right to treat me as though I'm a neophyte. Note: Not all reviewers do this. Most reviewers that I have dealt with do know how to write a civil critique. They make constructive suggestions, are pleasant to work with, and their comments result in editors being more motivated to work on the article and further improve it. With a few other reviewers though (such as Jbmurray and a couple of his supporters), I see a brusque and condescending demeanor, which at best is de-motivating, and at worst actively antagonizes people away from working on articles, or sometimes away from Wikipedia altogether.  When I  have spoken up about this kind of attitude, there's a "closing of the ranks" by the reviewers, as they stick up for each other (SandyGeorgia even told me that I had to "be nice" to Tony1) and they refuse to give any credence to the criticism.  They "dish it out but can't take it". And the great irony here, is that these FA reviewers who may believe that they are trying to protect Wikipedia, are actually acting at cross-purposes, as they contribute to such an unpleasant environment, it antagonizes writers away from even trying to get an article to FA status.
 * I am a volunteer on Wikipedia: I work on it because I want to, not because I have to. If I were a student with a sharp-tongued teacher, I might have to grovel a bit to get a good grade.  Or if I were working for a salary, and one of the other rude FA reviewers were my boss, then there would also be a bit of a perception of, "You're being paid to put up with their bad attitudes".  But that's not the case on Wikipedia, we're volunteers here.  If we want more high quality articles, then we should be encouraging editors, not belittling them.  It is my feeling that if there's an FA reviewer who doesn't understand that concept, then perhaps that reviewer should be asked to modify their behavior. And we absolutely shouldn't (in my opinion) give such a reviewer even more responsibility, with even more opportunities to antagonize other editors.  Administrators need to have excellent communication skills.  FA admins especially so.  Based on my observations of Jbmurray's behavior, I do not believe that he yet meets that standard.  --Elonka 16:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A bit more about my own background: Off-wiki, I am a professional writer, and a professional copyeditor. I not only am paid to write, I am sought out to copyedit other people's work. I am a senior editor on industry white papers.  Even among my friends and casual associates, people routinely refer to me as "the best proofreader they know."  I am comfortable that I am a good writer, and an excellent researcher.  And yet, on Wikipedia, some reviewers (such as Jbmurray) seem to feel that they have the right to treat me as though I'm a neophyte. Note: Not all reviewers do this. Most reviewers that I have dealt with do know how to write a civil critique. They make constructive suggestions, are pleasant to work with, and their comments result in editors being more motivated to work on the article and further improve it. With a few other reviewers though (such as Jbmurray and a couple of his supporters), I see a brusque and condescending demeanor, which at best is de-motivating, and at worst actively antagonizes people away from working on articles, or sometimes away from Wikipedia altogether.  When I  have spoken up about this kind of attitude, there's a "closing of the ranks" by the reviewers, as they stick up for each other (SandyGeorgia even told me that I had to "be nice" to Tony1) and they refuse to give any credence to the criticism.  They "dish it out but can't take it". And the great irony here, is that these FA reviewers who may believe that they are trying to protect Wikipedia, are actually acting at cross-purposes, as they contribute to such an unpleasant environment, it antagonizes writers away from even trying to get an article to FA status.
 * I am a volunteer on Wikipedia: I work on it because I want to, not because I have to. If I were a student with a sharp-tongued teacher, I might have to grovel a bit to get a good grade.  Or if I were working for a salary, and one of the other rude FA reviewers were my boss, then there would also be a bit of a perception of, "You're being paid to put up with their bad attitudes".  But that's not the case on Wikipedia, we're volunteers here.  If we want more high quality articles, then we should be encouraging editors, not belittling them.  It is my feeling that if there's an FA reviewer who doesn't understand that concept, then perhaps that reviewer should be asked to modify their behavior. And we absolutely shouldn't (in my opinion) give such a reviewer even more responsibility, with even more opportunities to antagonize other editors.  Administrators need to have excellent communication skills.  FA admins especially so.  Based on my observations of Jbmurray's behavior, I do not believe that he yet meets that standard.  --Elonka 16:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I am a volunteer on Wikipedia: I work on it because I want to, not because I have to. If I were a student with a sharp-tongued teacher, I might have to grovel a bit to get a good grade.  Or if I were working for a salary, and one of the other rude FA reviewers were my boss, then there would also be a bit of a perception of, "You're being paid to put up with their bad attitudes".  But that's not the case on Wikipedia, we're volunteers here.  If we want more high quality articles, then we should be encouraging editors, not belittling them.  It is my feeling that if there's an FA reviewer who doesn't understand that concept, then perhaps that reviewer should be asked to modify their behavior. And we absolutely shouldn't (in my opinion) give such a reviewer even more responsibility, with even more opportunities to antagonize other editors.  Administrators need to have excellent communication skills.  FA admins especially so.  Based on my observations of Jbmurray's behavior, I do not believe that he yet meets that standard.  --Elonka 16:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I am a volunteer on Wikipedia: I work on it because I want to, not because I have to. If I were a student with a sharp-tongued teacher, I might have to grovel a bit to get a good grade.  Or if I were working for a salary, and one of the other rude FA reviewers were my boss, then there would also be a bit of a perception of, "You're being paid to put up with their bad attitudes".  But that's not the case on Wikipedia, we're volunteers here.  If we want more high quality articles, then we should be encouraging editors, not belittling them.  It is my feeling that if there's an FA reviewer who doesn't understand that concept, then perhaps that reviewer should be asked to modify their behavior. And we absolutely shouldn't (in my opinion) give such a reviewer even more responsibility, with even more opportunities to antagonize other editors.  Administrators need to have excellent communication skills.  FA admins especially so.  Based on my observations of Jbmurray's behavior, I do not believe that he yet meets that standard.  --Elonka 16:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't want Elonka's most recent comments to go completely unrecognized: not so much because they are about me, than because they do perhaps reflect some concerns others might also hold about the Featured article candidacy process, which is Wikipedia's very own "Boulevard of Broken Dreams". I'm a strong believer in the Featured article process, though I can absolutely see how and why it generates frustration; and I can even see why to some it appears cliqueish.  On the latter point, in fact I'm sure that everyone involved would like more people to take part in reviewing prospective featured articles.  If anything, regular reviewers sometimes perhaps come across curt simply because they feel over-stretched.  So it's not an "us and them" mentality; it's that there's an ongoing need for more people to join "us," for more members of the community to help out in this very high-profile but understaffed area, of deciding which articles have the potential to represent the encyclopedia on the main page, as an example of "our very best work."
 * I hope to have time to say more about this later. I recognize that it might be inadvised in the context of my own RfA, but if it's an opportunity to demystify the FAC process (where I too am a relative newcomer), then all the better.  The only other thing I'd say for the moment is that I do believe that anyone can help bring an article to Featured article standard.  If my students can do it, having started the semester as complete wiki novices, then others can, too.  Moreover, the people involved in FAC are driven by the desire to see more people make it through the review process.  One sign of that is the work that people such as Tony and SandyGeorgia (and more recently myself) put in at the Featured content Dispatch workshop, encouraging others to take part and offering advice on how to increase your chances of passing through the process as painlessly as possible.
 * But sadly, I think that a completely painless FAC process is unlikely if not impossible, for reasons that Cirt and I discussed some time ago. It's hard to take what Tony calls "strategic distance" from your own writing, to realize that other people are commenting on your work, and not on you.  As I said to Cirt, "anyone who says it doesn't bother them at some level is lying."  All reviewers should acknowledge this; I apologize if I haven't shown sufficient acknowledgement in the past.  We should all, the reviewers and the reviewed, assume good faith, but also show that we assume good faith.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * "I am a professional writer, and a professional copyeditor. I not only am paid to write, I am sought out to copyedit other people's work. I am a senior editor on industry white papers. Even among my friends and casual associates, people routinely refer to me as 'the best proofreader they know.'  I am comfortable that I am a good writer, and an excellent researcher."


 * That's right, and like me you're pleased to run the gauntlet at WP and have your prose improved, yes? Tony   (talk)  11:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Elonka, you do realise that being an editor and an admin are different things? When you do editorial things, you take off the admin hat and are an editor just like everyone else. That is what FA reviewers and workers are doing. There is no such thing as an "FA admin", other than in the narrow sense of cleaning up FA process pages. When Jbmurray comments on FAs, he won't be using his admin tools (or he shouldn't be). His being an admin won't confer any special status at all. Adminship used to be no big deal, and I think you are overdoing your point here, but you've made your point, and I've made mine. Probably best to leave it there, like I said before. Carcharoth (talk) 13:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not subscribe to the "no big deal" definition. Adminship is a big deal.  Administrators are expected to be rolemodels. ArbCom agrees: "Administrators are held to high standards of conduct, as they are often perceived as the "official face" of Wikipedia. Administrators must be courteous, and exercise good judgment and patience in dealing with others." I'd also like to point out that Jbmurray's incivility was not limited to my one dispute with him. Just looking over his contribs over the last couple weeks, there are multiple diffs of concern.  For example, these kinds of edit summaries are not helpful, from referring to something as "stupid", referring to another editor's "stubbornness", or saying how "*boring*" an article was. It's also generally not going to de-escalate a dispute by accusing someone of "mindlessly" reverting something, And then there was this:  When another editor tagged four of Jbmurray's images, Jbmurray responded by putting FOUR duplicated messages on that editor's talkpage.  A violation of WP:POINT, and something which he's done another time as well: Lastly: It's one thing to lose one's temper occasionally, and then think about it later, retract your words, apologize and promise to do better.  But Jbmurray is continuing to maintain his "I did nothing wrong" attitude. Which is why I am still maintaining my "Oppose". --Elonka 04:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Sigh. From what I can see, these diffs again do not show any real incivility. They show opinions, something that administrators are not barred from having. As for violating WP:POINT, I do not see how. He replied several times appealing against the image tags being placed on his user page (for, quite frankly, valid reasons, it does get annoying when people do not listen) and again, there is absolutely nothing wrong with appealing someone's decision. I would agree that simply using an edit summary saying "Stupid" would be, infact, stupid. However, he hasn't done that. He said: "Removing that stupid tag that no one has bothered explaining", which is perfectly valid. Regards, CycloneNimrod Talk? 15:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent:) Briefly, regarding the three concerns raised by Elonka in her most recent comments: I would be glad to respond to any other concerns from yourself, or any other editor. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I discuss the issue of the image tags in my response to Q8 (from Noble Story). My reaction to receiving eight templates after trying to upload images was indeed a bit pointy.  I should have responded better.  I was something of a clueless newbie in terms of uploading my own images.  I felt a bit as though I was being treated as such; and I probably responded in kind, which I shouldn't have.  I'm pleased that Asenine, one of the two other editors involved, is still able to give me his/her "strong support" (no. 16 at the time of writing).
 * I discuss the interaction at The Accidental in my response to Q3. Both Qst and I started to get a little hot under the collar at one point.  I'm sorry if I expressed some frustration.  I'm pleased that Qst is also able to give me his/her support (no. 76 at the time of writing) and even, very kindly, sent me a special barnstar.
 * I discuss the issues I had about the Preity Zinta article at the appropriate FAC page (as, incidentally, a comment rather than an "oppose"; there my term was "awfully uninspiring"). This sparked a useful and collegial discussion with the article's main editors, both of whom thanked me.

User:Zginder's oppose

 * 1) I believe that non-self nominations increase the cabalism of Wikipedia. Zginder 2008-05-13T01:06Z (UTC)
 * This is not a self-nom. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 01:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And he was saying that he doesn't approve of self-noms. Gary King ( talk ) 01:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Why thank you Gary: I was just on my way to undo my mistake, but since you've now responded to it, I'll strike instead. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm just worried that someday, this guy and Kmweber are going to edit the same article at the same time, with disastrous consequences. --barneca (talk) 01:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Fine, I will hide back in my corner... Gary King ( talk ) 01:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Kurt already met the antiKurt here. I'm more interested in what will happen if Kmweber were to nominate Zginder at RFA. I can only try to imagine that nominate-and-accept statement :) Franamax (talk) 04:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Since some of us (like me) don't know what this conversation is about, and it started with my mistaken reading of the oppose, can this line of discussion please continue on the talk page? I will copy this to there. Thanks, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Zginder forgot to say "prima facie" in the opposing statement. OhanaUnitedTalk page 23:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally, I wonder how much weight the 'crats will give to either argument. -- Sharkface T/C 00:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably crossed out the opposes in their mind (but they don't need to read the oppose if the support % is that high). He's sitting in a comfortable 98% support. Unless a cyclone or an earthquake happens, chances are Jbmurray will become an admin. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That's hopefully meant as a joke, but nevertheless is in seriously bad taste. A lot of people are suffering or dead right now, that's your comparison to jbm's adminship discussion. OU, perhaps you'd consider removing both your comment and this one - and we'll end this thread? Franamax (talk) 05:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It is meant to be sacrasm. But if you have to assume my comments as bad faith, I can't stop and influence your mind. <b style="color:#0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b><b style="color:green;">Talk page</b> 04:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * To elucidate here for bemused readers, Zginder has very recently run again for admin as a self-nomination. Within that RfA, Kmweber made an oppose statement on his standard criterion of opposing any self-noms on principle. Zginder responded in apparent good-faith, but in equally apparent lack of grasp of the arcane "knowledge" that Kurt is Kurt and will continue to be Kurt, opposing all self-noms. Other editors commented on this within Zginder's RfA, somewhat in a negative light towards Zginder. The apparent consequence of this is that Zginder has chosen to oppose this nomination on the strict principle that if it is not a self-nomination, it is somehow bad. That's not an incorrect position, support has been expressed for self-noms as showing that the individual has the necessary guts for the job (or has "balls", 50% of the time:). The unfortunate appearance is that whereas Kmweber has presumably derived his !vote from basic principles, Zginder has derived theirs from Kmweber's principles. Hilarity ensues, in-on-the-scene comments are made. Smiles frown. That's my assessment. Franamax (talk) 06:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with the above description of Zginder's motivation. Nevertheless, the points they make are good ones. A tendency for self-noms to fail, other things being equal, will raise the likelihood of cabalism and overwhelmingly positive RfAs are not healthy because they are a sign of conformity. It is not true, of course, that self-noms fail, but they do seem harder. And, any particular overwhelmingly positive Rfa can be healthy. But these are thoughts worth considering. --Regents Park ( Feed my swans ) 14:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - FWIW, I think Zginder's oppose was simply making a point, given the direction of Zginder's own RfA which ran partially concurrently to this one. Frank  |  talk  14:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Please try to assume good faith. I was not intending to make a point, I probability did, but I did not intend to. Zginder 2008-05-15T12:27Z (UTC)
 * Of course I am assuming good faith; my comment was the result of the timing of your comments, nothing more. You have only very few RfA comments before your most recent self-nom, and then during your own RfA, you made that comment at least twice in others' RfAs (Coppertwig and jbmurray). It looked like a point to me. Frank  |  talk  12:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * During my RFA I was at the page often and therefore voted. Zginder 2008-05-15T13:03Z (UTC)

(outdent:) For what it's worth: as far as I'm concerned, Zginder has every right to oppose, and both the reasons that s/he has given seem fair enough to me. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 13:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That's very fair of you (considering it is your Rfa!). Personally, I thing Zginder makes two very valid points but don't agree with the blanket application of the rationale (this applies equally to the famous kurt's opposes!) to every Rfa. It is valid to hold the view that a bias against self-noms increases cabalism in wikipedia, or that the lack of oppose votes could mean that something not-so-nice is not being revealed, but it does not follow that every non-self-nom is doing the same thing or that every overwhelmingly positive vote is doomed to have negative consequences. Each Rfa, everything in fact, should be addressed on its merits alone and any systemic deficiencies (the bias against self-noms, getting more broad-based voting to avoid overly positive votes) should be addressed at the system level. Zginder has made many positive contributions to Wikipedia (as any examination of their history will show), has gone through a not-so-great Rfa, and I think it reasonably fair to cut him/her some slack here (as you have done) where no harm is being done, and to hope that he/she will continue to contribute to the encyclopedia and will address these issues where they need to be addressed. --Regents Park ( Feed my swans ) 16:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I have switch to support for the Admin candidate being the only one assuming good faith. Zginder 2008-05-15T17:20Z (UTC)

Oppose votes in the support category: curious template
Could someone please explain why two messages, which are clearly marked “oppose”, remain within the “support” section? I ask for no better reason than to understand the organizational structure of this template. I suspect that I am not alone in thinking that it is both confusing and misleading. Regards, J Readings (talk) 19:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's either sarcasm or a gaffe when the discussion regarding the same oppose in the oppose section was moved. We've asked for clarification here. cheers, xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 19:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe there's only one "Oppose" in the "Support" section. It's a joke, poking fun at one of the actual opposes.  Don't take my word for it; the person who did it clarified in the paragraph immediately below his "oppose".  This is not uncommon in RfA's (fake-opposing for a perceived silly reason being equivalent to a support), although people that don't frequent RfA probably feel, as you do, confused.  Occasionally this causes the nominee additional stress, and there have been discussions about it on WT:RFA, but since Jbmurray seems to have a cool head, and it's like a gazillion to two at the moment, hopefully this isn't an issue in this particular RfA.


 * Thank you for the clarification, and apologies for the misunderstanding. I wanted to vote, but hesitated as I found myself asking how this template works. J Readings (talk) 19:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't apologize for being rational! Hope it's all clear now. (plus, AdonicO clarified himself while I was typing, making my previous comment unnecessary). --barneca (talk) 19:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

neutral vote
Since nobody has supplied a witty reason, per the individuals request, should we not strike this !vote.

And then reimpose it.

And then strike it again.

etc.

LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC) (what you are hearing are footsteps. retreating. rapidly.)