Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Jc3s5h

Edit count for Jc3s5h Username:	Jc3s5h User groups:	reviewer, rollbacker First edit:	Mar 10, 2009 19:21:19 Unique pages edited:	1,018 Average edits per page:	5.05 Live edits:	5,106 Deleted edits:	32 Total edits (including deleted):	5,138

Namespace Totals

Article	2038	39.91% Talk	639	12.51% User	228	4.47% User talk	792	15.51% Wikipedia	483	9.46% Wikipedia talk	799	15.65% File	10	0.20% File talk	5	0.10% MediaWiki talk	1	0.02% Template	20	0.39% Template talk	91	1.78% Namespace Totals Pie Chart Month counts 2009/03	146 	2009/04	100 	2009/05	266 	2009/06	392 	2009/07	261 	2009/08	281 	2009/09	485 	2009/10	311 	2009/11	302 	2009/12	293 	2010/01	555 	2010/02	399 	2010/03	201 	2010/04	189 	2010/05	326 	2010/06	319 	2010/07	180 	2010/08	100

Top edited pages (hide)Article

* 85 - Gregorian_calendar * 60 - Metric_system * 57 - Common_Era * 51 - Anno_Domini * 50 - United_States_customary_units * 49 - Julian_calendar * 46 - International_System_of_Units * 45 - Conversion_of_units * 37 - Julian_day * 36 - Mile

(hide)Talk

* 47 - Common_Era * 44 - Julian_calendar * 33 - Anno_Domini * 27 - Computus * 26 - Emitter-coupled_logic * 26 - Gregorian_calendar * 22 - Conversion_between_Julian_and_Gregorian_calendars * 19 - System_time * 16 - Julian_day * 15 - Revised_Julian_calendar

(hide)User

* 107 - Jc3s5h/sandbox3 * 48 - Jc3s5h * 25 - Jc3s5h/sandbox4 * 9 - Jc3s5h/sortTable * 7 - Jc3s5h/sandbox * 5 - Jc3s5h/vector.js   * 3 - Full-date_unlinking_bot * 2 - Jc3s5h/Boracay_Bill_on_references * 2 - Jc3s5h/Harvard_citation * 2 - Jc3s5h/sb-DATEtoMOS

(hide)User talk

* 91 - Jc3s5h * 22 - Rich_Farmbrough * 20 - Full-date_unlinking_bot * 10 - 62.31.226.77   * 9 - Citation_bot * 7 - Chris_Bennett * 6 - 156.61.160.1   * 5 - Ninjagecko * 5 - SkyLined * 5 - Joe_Kress

(hide)Wikipedia

* 56 - Help_desk * 43 - Reliable_sources/Noticeboard * 37 - Mosnum/proposal_on_YYYY-MM-DD_numerical_dates * 36 - Sockpuppet_investigations/Vote_(X)_for_Change * 27 - Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism * 20 - Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents * 18 - Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers) * 16 - Reference_desk/Science * 15 - Reference_desk/Computing * 14 - Centralized_discussion/Citation_discussion

(hide)Wikipedia talk

* 229 - Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers) * 180 - Verifiability * 88 - Citing_sources * 62 - No_original_research * 60 - Identifying_reliable_sources * 46 - Manual_of_Style * 20 - Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking/Proposed_d... * 13 - Citation_templates * 12 - Full-date_unlinking_bot * 8 - Referencing_for_beginners_with_citation_templates

(hide)File

* 2 - TICKLER.svg * 2 - Pnp-structure.png * 2 - Acre_over_US_and_Associationl_football_field.svg * 2 - Deathcertificate.jpg * 1 - TICKLER.png * 1 - Npn-structure.png

(hide)File talk

* 3 - Permanent_calendar.png * 2 - Acre_over_US_and_Associationl_football_field.svg

(hide)MediaWiki talk

* 1 - Spam-blacklist

(hide)Template

* 4 - Cite_web/doc * 3 - Val/doc * 3 - Iso/doc * 2 - Start_date/doc * 2 - Death_date/testcases * 1 - Death_date/doc * 1 - Citation/doc * 1 - Dts/doc * 1 - Gaps/doc * 1 - UF-date-warn

(hide)Template talk

* 24 - Cite_web * 15 - Val * 13 - Citation * 12 - Citation/core * 8 - Unreferenced * 3 - Cite_thesis * 2 - Geographic_reference * 2 - Dmy * 2 - Cite_journal * 2 - Cite_book

Disclosure
I have posted a notice of this RFA at WikiProject Copyright Cleanup, because this candidate says that he or she intends to focus on that area of work. Bwrs (talk) 00:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose from 94.195.195.252

 * Strong oppose.  Do not give this man any new powers.   There will be chaos if you do.  As people grow older their brain function deteriorates.   This has been commented on here.   Congratulations to all those who observed this with no prior knowledge of the candidate.   WFC says "One would think that in a four line nomination statement, the candidate would go to the trouble of getting that right."   The reality is that he can't.   Even his correction is wrong.   He writes "Jc3s5h (talk) 14:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC) corrected 16:31, August 2010".There should be a date in there somewhere.

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations:Vote (X) for Change contains dozens of date headers input by the candidate. He uses the same date over and over again, wrong dates, wrong times, no dates, no times. Check with the signatures which show the actual times these reports were made. (Some dates have been corrected by uninvolved third parties). If the candidate cannot get dates right, what chance has he of mastering the complex work of an administrator?

When illness prevents someone from working they have time on their hands. Without insight into their condition they may turn to Wikipedia and try to regain some of the power they used to have by aspiring to become administrators. So the problems they had with their old job now transfer to Wikipedia, and one man with jurisdiction over 75,000 other people can cause an awful lot of trouble.

In Wikipedia the condition manifests ifself in overzealous protection of edits and self - created articles. Although neither Gregorian calendar nor Tropical year are the candidate's creation he has added them to his user space so he can work on them. Here the candidate tests a rule and reports "no errors". As soon as a proposal is made to incorporate it in the article he created he starts claiming "the general rule is wrong" and talks of "damage" and "original research". . (10th February, 2010).

To the candidate, the claim "no archives yet" is logical when the talk page archive he has created is Archive 0. Here are some of the flowers he would not want visitors to his secret garden to notice (comments are other contributors', italicised ones are the candidate's).

"You removed a completed discussion from your page.  I did that once until someone showed me WP:ARCHIVE." (17th July, 2006).

"Entire comment removed to fix misspelt word.  Clear vandalism.   Warning uncivil." (31st August, 2006).

"Being argumentative, arguing for the sake of arguing." (12th September, 2006).

"Not insulting you personally.  Described your edit as 'vandalism' as it seems to be." (20th September, 2006).

"Never revert good faith edits.  Discuss or improve.   Reversion is for fighting vandalism." (22nd September, 2006).

"I'm not being sarcastic.  I understand your source concern, however this statement is  painfully obvious from the very definition.   Would  you require a source to say that a policy of genocide is bad?" (26th May, 2007).

"You are a troll.  Go away."   (3rd March, 2008).

"Be careful accusing people of messing things up." (13th March, 2008).

"Making controversial changes without discussion is unhelpful.  Don't do it.   Stop reverting - you've made the exact same reversion three times in ten hours." (29th August, 2008).

"Your edit summary says there is a consensus.  There isn't.   Don't revert until there actually is a consensus." (9th September, 2008).

"Your statements are beyond fallacious.  This is not how you try to get your way and is disruptive." (9th October, 2008).

"You reverted me for testing when I changed '2/square root 2' into 'square root 2'.  The terms are exactly equivalent."
 * Vandals change formulae so it's not always clear what the correct formula should be.  (5th January, 2009).

I suggest you multiply both the numerator and denominator by square root 2 and see what you get.

"I came to the conclusion that you are a 'brick' and are provoking an edit war.  You have little knowledge of the subject.   Why am I even talking to you???" (11th January, 2009).

"No source provided to show that the Southern Baptist Convention is either American or conservative.  That's the most hilarious sentence I've read in a long time." (19th January, 2009).

Unsigned comment by 68.154.253.60
 * cyber bully with a chip on their shoulder (26th March, 2009).

Your request (17th June, 2009)

This is probably the deletion of the candidate's userpage. The candidate tried to get the talk page deleted by adding a CSD tag. A sharp - eyed administrator spotted the ruse and removed the tag.

Watt and its ability to accelerate one kilogram

"Never mind, Jc3s5h.  I see now by your writing This is much greater than Greg's suspicion, that this has turned into some sort of face saving contest where you perceive there is some sort of world - wide audience  you are now addressing.   So rather than simply address me with something like 'Greg, here is a calculation I just did...' (which would have been more polite and mature) you behave like you're in a 6th - grade classroom." (19th October, 2009).

Rollback

"This is a clear abuse of rollback." (28th October, 2009).

template cite web title field

"But I feel an upwelling of empathy for you, because you seem to be so eager to express your good ideas, even at the expense of alienating  your listeners." (20th November, 2009).

Edit warring on Julian calendar

"That's a content dispute, not vandalism - be sure you don't get blocked for violating the rules against edit warring." - Sarek of Vulcan. (15th February, 2010).

Dispute tag on Julian calendar

"This is not the way to do it: overall its a minor point.   Yes there are details which are being disputed, even if it's for no sane or comprehensible reason, but I still contend that tagging the whole article is going too far." (17th February, 2010).

Ad hominen attack

"This so called 'results of discussion' is little more than a thinly veiled personal attack.  If you disagreee with another editor, do say so and why.   However, ad hominem attacks are not constructive and if you try this again, we will be discussing the matter at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts." (9th June, 2010).

June 2010

"Please do not attack other editors, as you did here: Common Era.   If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

There you go again. It was most certainly not wrong. The only action that was wrong was for you to accuse me in your edit summary (for a disrupted and unjustified edit summary at that) of not understanding the information, thereby implying ignorance or intellectual inferiority. It was an ad hominem argument to 'justify' your removal of content from the article, and as I noticed on your talk page, it's certainly not the first time that you've engaged in personal attacks. If you actually care to read the rules some time,  you'd notice that WP:NPA makes it very clear that one should addresss the content and not the contributor; something which you seem to repeatedly fail to do. If you continue to flaunt the rules and disregard the warnings that result,then you're going to find yourself in trouble over and over again."

Some comments never get into the archive because they are removed. Here are some examples:

Comment ridiculing the candidate for a spelling error. (4th June, 2006).

"F-U.  I don't care what you think of my editing.   So up yours m****r-f****r." (1st December, 2008).

The candidate attracts the same kind of fan club as the Labour politician John (now Lord) Prescott does over here.

(13th March, 2010), pushing his POV.

The ANI thread referred to above relates to a consensus which was reached by editors on the use of templates. The candidate attempted to justify his deletion of them by use of words such as "bastard" and "truly idiotic and uncalled for".

"The debate is over.  Autoformatting lost."'
 * "There is significant support for autoformatting."  (12th January, 2009)

The input to other contributors' talk pages is equally depressing.

"Do not remove warnings from your user talk page.  Doing so may result in you being blocked from Wikipedia."   (18th March, 2007). Says who?

A message written entirely in capital letters (including the edit summary) giving orders to a contributor was posted to the contributor's talk page on 20th February, 2009.

The reason the candidate gave for concealing his real name was that the developers were taking the project in a dangerous direction and he was frightened to continue editing in his own name. If that's how he feels he should leave the project altogether.

Like many people (including administrators) he finds it convenient to ignore specific provisions of the rules designed to protect the innocent. Nobody is banned until the community formally bans them after a discussion lasting at least 24 hours. This prevents administrators pursuing vendettas against contributors they don't like. Blocked users have the same rights as everybody else. Anyone reverting them is subject to 3RR. This prevents POV pushers gaining advantage by telling lies to administrators to get them blocked and then reverting their contributions on sight with the excuse that they are "banned". The purpose of the SPI is to investigate whether the two essential ingredients of suckpuppetry - disruption and deception - are present. It is the disruption which brings the contributor to the notice of administrators. The deception is fragmentation of the contribution record. The rules make it plain that IP editing is not sockpuppetry but the same person editing from different IP addresses.

The candidate takes things a stage further by labelling administrators sockpuppets. Here, he reverts Flyguy649 (15th March, 2010). Here he reverts Jusdafax (15th March, 2010). Here he reverts a contributor who was trying to improve syntax by inserting "the" before "vernal equinox". (19th June, 2010). Here he reverts a contributor who fixed a broken link, leading the webmaster to come down and do it himself. (26th June, 2010). Here he reverts a contributor who corrected the spelling of the word "calendar" in a section heading. (2nd July, 2010).

The answer to question 3 is untrue. The candidate is the frequent subject of discussion at ANI. See these threads: Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive616, (26th May, 2010), Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive616,  (29th May, 2010), Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive617,   (15th June, 2010), Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive619, (15th June, 2010), Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive621, (24th June, 2010), Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive623,   (4th July, 2010),  Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive625,  (11th July, 2010), Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive626, (21st July, 2010), and  , Elockid abetting meatpuppets? (28th July, 2010).

Without even attempting to justify his action other than by the usual ill - tempered bluster the candidate will, without prior discussion, revert an article to a six - month old version (e.g. Computus) thus nullifying all the hard work of the many editors who are trying to improve the encyclopedia. This leads to the readers adding perplexed posts to the talk pages asking what is going on.

Here are some gems from other pages. There are many, many more (these are not the worst examples) but time is short and the water rises.

"The Gregorian calendar includes lunar as well as solar aspects (although the lunar aspects are usually only used for religious purposes).  I doubt contributor's technique finds the next year that is identical in both the lunar and solar sense."
 * (All the poor reader had asked for was a way to find out, for example, if a year begins on a Sunday, how long to wait before the next year which begins on a Sunday).
 * "It certainly does not.  It simply finds the next time the calendar is repeated, which is all that was asked for."  (2008).

"The sources to look in to find, for example, what calendar Greece replaced the Julian calendar with would include books of Greek law."  (January, 2010).

Although the candidate has edited the relevant articles since there is no reference to this. The inference is that he has found out that Greece and its established Church, along with Russia and neighbouring countries and churches (but not the Russian and Serbian Orthodox churches) now use the Meletian calendar. This calendar is one of his pet hates, along with the Queen's English and the ISO date standard. Surprising, really, since the calendar is accurate to one day in 44,000 years, compared to the Gregorian's one day in 3,323 years.

On the subject of the Queen's English, the candidate added an "American English" template to an article, claiming in his edit summary that this was because "a few words use US rather than UK spelling". (January, 2010). There were no Americanisms. There were none in the article he created, Conversion between Julian and Gregorian calendars, either but that didn't stop him adding the same template. When he went round changing "metre" to "meter" he was pulled up on his talk page. He replied with edit summaries claiming that imperial units were only generally used in America (4th January, 2010).
 * "I can assure you that the yard is still widely used in other parts of the world, including road traffic signs throughout the UK".  (4th January, 2010).
 * "One editor adding a template to a talk page doesn't amount to a consensus for change."  (User talk:Old Moonraker, 5th January, 2010).

"Undo unsourced crap with deceptive edit summary."  (20th January, 2010).

"You are entitled to your opinions but they are facile, ignorant and against well - established Wikipedia guidelines.  Please restore the templates which you expunged in a fit of self - importance." (Talk:Anno Domini, 3rd February, 2010).

"Blueboar's interpretation is complete crap."  (Wikipedia talk:No original research, 11th May, 2010.)

"Jc3s5h, are you done badgering anyone that dares speak the words 'ISO format' or 'ISO date'?  Because it's really getting annoying, and seems to be your only contribution to the MoS."
 * The candidate owns up to being a "pain in the ass".
 * "Doing the same thing and expecting different result is a common pathology.  How about finding a persuasive argument that will change their minds instead?"   (Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, 25th May, 2010).94.195.195.252 (talk) 14:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Cut from project page, where the indented vote has been trimmed to the first paragraph.. – xeno talk 20:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)