Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Jc37

Jc37

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (51/6/5); Scheduled to end 08:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Nomination

Jc37 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) – Hi all. I'm submitting this RfB to the community because I'd like to help. It's what I like to do here at Wikipedia. I don't have any FAs (or rather: I haven't successfully sent any articles through the FA process AFAIK), but that's not really been my focus. I tend to enjoy more, creating stubs, or helping a stub on its way, or even more, organising an existing page so that its flow is better, and it's clearer and easier to read. (Incidentally, I dislike that this is supposed to be one big block of text : ) - I suppose I like the editor-ing part of editing. I enjoy cleaning up articles, and in particular, lists and categories. I suppose that all of these might be pretty much considered mostly thankless tasks, but we each contribute to Wikipedia in our own way : ) - As for non-content/article-space, I've been present for/contributed to many policy/process discussions over the years, helping write/re-write many policy/guideline/essay pages. I also like to help out new (and not-so-new) editors. In the past, I've also been a "go-to person" to look over proposed policy/guidelines, particular edits, 3PO etc. I was entrusted with the tools and responsibilities of adminship in 2006. I tend to be most active at CfD, but as I like to help out, I float all over. For example, the other day I noticed that there was a backlog at RfPP, so I cleared most of the page. As you may notice if you look over my contribs, I have had some "gaps" in editing in the past due to various real life issues/concerns (at one point my ancient computer gave up the ghost in the machine : ) - Anyway, to all who take the time to "look me over", thanks for your time : ) - jc37 08:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: C'est moi : ) - jc37 08:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as a bureaucrat. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?

A: - I've read a LOT of RfA discussions. And I've seen a fair number of contentious closures. RfA (like most of the processes which grant an individual user-rights and related responsibilities) is pretty much a hybrid between voting and consensus. So with that in mind, while there really is no "magic" number, anything better than 3/4 (75%) is "usually" a successful candidacy, with the region roughly between 2/3 and 3/4 being within discretion. That said, in preparing for this nom, I read over quite a few past successful RfBs, and find that each seems to have their own personal preference on the specifics of the numbers. I seem to remember being in some RfC discussion long (long long) past where many sitting bureaucrats were polled on this, and there was a general agreement on where the "fuzzy middle" of the numbers should lie, but it all pretty much resolved as: it depends on the stuation, we'd rather trust the bureaucrats to be conscientious in their discretion than to affix arbitrary benchmarks in policy - which is part of why there is currently still no mandated numeric amount. - jc37 08:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?

A: Depends on the situation. "Contentious" covers a lot of ground. In some cases, a 3PO might be a good idea, in others, it may not be necessary. As for "criticised", an RfA often brings together those who disagree, and so there are those who will disagree with (criticise) a closure. Such is life on Wikipedia. The response to that is I believe the same as expected of any closer. Be ready to explain any close. Don't close if you're unsure of the accuracy/appropriateness of the closure. And so on. - jc37 08:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

3. Wikipedians expect bureaucrats to adhere to high standards of fairness, knowledge of policy and the ability to engage others in the community. Why do you feel you meet those standards?

A: Because I do? lol. But more seriously, I'm a firm believer in the Consensus model, and in Wikiquette. (See the top of my talk page for some links/examples.) Incidentally, I considered linking the various policy/process pages which related to my statements in my nomination and these questions, but as I did, I realised I could link nearly everything. And since I felt/feel that most commenting here would hopefully be at least somewhat well-versed in such pages, I decided to spare everyone the wall-o-blue : ) - jc37 08:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Leaky caldron

4. Can you explain why (a) you think that the setting on an edit count limit on WP:RFA would be beneficial, (b) your rationale for imposing such an automated limit and (c) in what circumstances you would pass an RFA candidate with 400 edits? See [1]

A: - Well, I'm not entirely sold on the idea that there should be a "set" limit. But I can see the benefits being similar to NOTNOW. Though, thinking about it, I think setting such a limit might be less seemingly confrontational to a newbie than telling them after-the-fact "not now" - being proactive, rather than reactive. As for why 400, I explained in that link why I picked that number. Though, to be sure, numeric edit counting is quite open to gaming, and might need to be locked down some way, like saying that userspace and talk space edits, as well as (semi-)automated edits shouldn't count towards that number. I suppose the idea/intent is to try to come up with a way to assign a benchmark for "minimum experience". And I think even if we set one, IAR, as always should be potentially applicable under certain case-by-case bases. The short answer I suppose is: I'm not convinced one way or other, but I'd be interested in what the rest of the community thinks. If you'd like, I would be happy to discuss this with you and see where you and I may agree and disagree : ) - jc37 09:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from TheSpecialUser

5. What according to you are the minimum requirements for an editor to pass an RfA and under which circumstances or how much % consensus (minimum) will you promote an editor?

A: As a closer? AFAIK, according to policy, other than being a registered Wikipedian (having an account), there are currently no minimum requirements for an editor to pass an RfA. That said, as I noted above (under question 1), we traditionally have rough numeric benchmarks we look toward as a guide. I think I explained this in question 1. However, if there is something you would like me to clarify, I would be happy to do so. (I feel like I'm missing something in your question.) - jc37 10:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Nothing much but, for e.g., there are 2 editors (a and b). A gets 76% S% votes in their rfa while B gets 73% S% votes, so who will be promoted by you, (both? only A? only B? none?) and why? →TheSpecialUser^Talk_{Contributions}* 10:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it would depend on the substantive discussion in the RfA. Sorry, I don't mean to say (again) "it depends", but it kinda does. But ok, for the sake of whatever, let's pretend that all supports and all opposes are merely "support" and "oppose", then, by the numbers alone, I think I would probably promote both. (Though in that very unlikely case, I would still probably do some due diligence and check their contribs myself, in part to see whether I would feel comfortable being the closer.) Does that better answer? (I know, I've always been terrible with answering hypotheticals : ) - jc37 10:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

That was perfect. →TheSpecialUser^Talk_{Contributions}* 14:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Additional questions from Scottywong

6. Please describe/summarise why and when it would be appropriate to:

6a. ...add the bot, account creator, or reviewer user group to an account.

A: While in the past I have poked my nose around BAG and such, I would definitely need to brush up and read quite a bit before diving into that. The other user-rights noted are given as an admin, and as far as I recall, I've not given those out.

6b. ...remove the administrator, bot, account creator, IP block exemption, or reviewer user group from an account.

A: Well, removing admin user-rights is an ability only recently given to bureaucrats on en.wiki (last summer, I think). There are very specific situations listed, such as by request, by arbcomm request, or the newish inactive admin policy. As for the rest, I think the same answer as above applies.

6c. ...rename user accounts.

A: The guidelines are listed at Wikipedia:Changing username/Guidelines. The 6 examples listed there: Present name is a policy violation. Privacy reasons. Eliminating SUL conflicts. Personal preference. Trivial renames. You didn't ask about usurptions, or SUL situations, but those are explained on that page as well. - jc37 17:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

7. How does one determine consensus? And how may it be determined differently on RfA/RfB discussions than other consensus discussions?

A:Very carefully : )

Kidding aside, a consensus may be determined by reading through the discussion in question and weighing the arguements in light of the current discussion, and in light of the broader Wikipedia previous consensus and common practice (as may be noted on policy/guideline project pages).

As I noted in a question above: RfA/B (like most of the processes which grant an individual user-rights and related responsibilities) is pretty much a hybrid between voting and consensus. Please see questions 1 and 5 for more info. Though please feel free to ask for further clarification. - jc37 17:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

8. Why do you wish to be a bureaucrat?

A: I saw this, and as I mentioned in the statement at the top, I'd like to help. - jc37 17:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Juliancolton

9. You have one edit left before your internet connection dies forever, and you can use it for one of three things: to fix a typo in the lead of an article, to block an IP vandal (your edit is notifying them on their talk page), or giving somebody a barnstar or equivalent praise. Which would you choose?

A: Well if I really only get one edit (and knew that in advance), I'd probably give another (presumably active) admin the "barnstar or equivalent praise" and in the same edit let them know about the typo and IP vandal : ) - jc37 16:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Come on, that's the best you got? ;) Bureaucrats don't always have the luxury of being able to kill three birds with one stone. I guess to put it another way: which category of contribution out of those three do you consider the most important? Juliancolton (talk) 17:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Most important for Wikipedia? Or most important to me and that vague sense of perfectionistism that rears it's head at the most inopportune times? (lol)

If the IP is indeed a vandal, then (unfortunately) that should probably be dealt with before a minor typo, or before giving a fellow Wikipedian the support/praise they so likely deserve. (But there's a decent chance I'd still try to find some other way to get the other two options accomplished : ) - jc37 17:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Additional questions (entirely optional) from Kudpung

10. I. appreciate your answers in Q1 & Q4, concerning benchmarks. What is your personal take on 'crat chat' rather than taking a sole decision on borderline cases.

A: I consider it a type of 3PO. (Though I suppose a bit more expansive - allowing for the possibility of a sort of consensual discussion amongst bureaucrats.)

11. What should be, if any, the role of a bureaucrat in calling an RfA to order - especially in the case of obvious trolling, votes based purely on fancruft/vengeance, canvassing, diffs taken deliberately out of context in order to be negative, and lies?

A: Most of your examples could be dealt with by any admin (and depending on the situation, any editor). What I think may affect bureaucrats directly could be to re-affirm/clarify what sorts of things would or wouldn't typically be taken into account in closing. - jc37 03:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

12. Have you ever read the collated tables and stats that demonstrate trends in RfA candidate pass/fail thresholds? Indeed, have you ever participated in any discussions about possible reforms to the current Admin election process?`

A: yes and yes. (I'm guessing I'm not gonna get off that easy lol - I'll look for diffs in a bit : ) - jc37 03:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC) - LOTS of discussions at WT:RFA, as well as Wikipedia:RfA Review, and Wikipedia:Adminship poll, among other things. - jc37 05:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

13. Do you think calling adminship a promotion could encourage users to run for office for reasons that might not be entirely appropriate?

A: I suppose I could see that. That said, I think it's a fairly common turn of phrase. I think I personally usually use "granted tools and responsibilities", but that said, I think I've used "promote" at least once on this page. - jc37 03:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from WilliamH

14. An up-and-coming editor here on en.wikipedia with 650 edits and 3 months experience posts a username change request at WP:CHUS. You check the username he has requested and among the accounts, you find an account on de.wiktionary created in 2009 with 19 edits which last edited 9 months ago. There are a few other accounts on other projects, but they were all created years ago and have no edits, and there is no unified login for the username anyway. What would you do?

A: Ouch @ no SUL. My honest answer right now would be: contact some other bureaucrat for help (You, for example? : ) - But to try to answer: Was the the purpose of the request SUL? (Was the user requesting SUL? Listing at WP:CHUS would suggest they were not.) If not, then a rename sounds like it would be declined due to Target username has edits to another WMF project. (per WP:CHUG). Though if so (they did request this with SUL in mind), I think that this would be declined in this case as well, or at least put on hold for more info. (And I will say, responding to this makes me uncomfortable right now, which means, that I would be unlikely to be the "closer", as it were, of this request until I had more experience with SUL.) But to try to figure out the potholes: While the following might have applied: "If a single-user login has not yet been created, the user with the most edits holds the "claim" to the SUL. (from WP:SUL/C), I think the de.wikt account presents issues: older than 6 months; I don't know whether the following applies to de.wikt "If the wiki has account creation restricted then it is not able to be merged at this time." (from meta:H:UL); and so on. (I keep looking up expecting to see a trout heading my way : ) - So anyway the best answer to this in my opinion (especially as as a novice bureaucrat) would be to go ask for help/advice concerning SUL. (There's something to be said for institutional memory.) And there's always another Wikipedian to ask : ) - jc37 05:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from My76Strat

15. Please show a response here to User:Avanu's comment shown here as it begs to be known which position you favor.

A: When I posted there, I was hoping for a broader set of responses. I personally think a discussion is a good thing, and many eyes (and many thoughts/voices) can bring out things that an individual may not be considering or have even thought of. So that was mostly the point of that post. (An attempt to start a discussion.) I had just read how several people were arguing for and against pre-emptive blocking of presumably COI-named accounts. So I wanted to see what they thought about how it meshes with the "preventative, not punative" part of blocking policy (something which, in my experience, has been debated in its applicability to any particular situation in the past). Just as then, I now am not "sure" about it. I suppose my general "leaning" would be to consider things like: The community, though still somewhat in flux about COI editing (we currently seem to have an on again off again debate about paid editors, for example), seems to be leaning towards allowing COI-declared editors to edit within certain strictures (WP:COI). So I guess I might see this as similar to the old userbox-war argument about whether someone should be allowed to list a COI or bias-related userbox on their talk page. At that time I eventually pretty much agreed with the perspective that (as long as the phrasing was positive/civil, etc.) we should allow editors to helpfully express such bias/COI, as such userboxes can provide a helpful clue to other editors when interacting with the editor in question. So it would seem that something similar should apply to usernames. However, as usernames have MUCH more potential visibility than a userbox on a user's talk page, I'm still not sure about this, and would be happy to engage in further discussion about it. (There were also some fairly interesting points in the discussion about questions of asking the individual to abandon the account rather than it being necessary to block the account.) In the meantime, should I be granted the tools to help out at WP:CHU, until such discussions have consensus one way or other, any such naming I would do would obviously be based on existing common practice/policy. (Based partially on his comments here, I think one of the first people I think I would want to ask about all of this would likely be User:MBisanz, who I note doesn't appear to have commented in the aforementioned discussion.) Sorry for the length. I hope I clarified as you asked. But please feel free to ask for further clarification, obviously. - jc37 04:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

General comments

• Links for Jc37: Jc37 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Jc37 can be found here.

• Note: For the sake of transparency, there are roughly a half dozen Wikipedians who I have discussed adminship and/or bureaucratship with in the past. I intend to drop each of them a friendly notice linking to this page. If anyone wishes to oppose due to this, they are of course welcome to. But I think it's merely the polite thing to do. - jc37 08:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

  Dropped a note with the three who co-nommed me for adminship, and 3 bureaucrats with whom I've discussed such things in the recent (and distant) past. - jc37 09:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.

Discussion

• Stats on talk. Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Support

1. Support I see that Jc37 is prepared to take difficult decisions. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
2. Support - A good amount of experience as an admin and has good edits. Though I see that their level of activity reduced between few months and has resumed since only 4 months, this user is trustworthy so support (no reason for me to oppose). →TheSpecialUser^Talk_{Contributions}* 09:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
3. Support --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
4. Support - Trustworthy candidate, successful administrator. Wrote some nice responses to the questions above. Cheers, C_(u)w_(t)C_(c) 09:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
5. Support as user seems to be helpful, considerate, friendly, and I feel can be trusted with the extra tools/responsibilities. Good luck! Warning - I was super close to opposing over this typo ;) GiantSnowman 10:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
6. Support, does good work at CfD, should do equally good work at RfA. - filelakeshoe 10:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
7. Support good amount of experience.....good edits as an admin.. StrikeEagle ^✈ 10:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
8. Support – I have been encountering jc37 for some years now, mainly at cfd, where jc37 is consistently exemplary. Oculi (talk) 10:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
9. Support. I know very little about what bureaucrats do, but I do understand adminship, and jc37 is masterful at that. Jc is thoughtful, friendly, humble, and willing to do the difficult and sometimes unpleasant things. That sounds like what you need as a bureaucrat.--Mike Selinker (talk) 11:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
10. Support - I really don't see any reason not to.... Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
11. Support - no issues come up while searching through the user's Admin Actions. We need more Crats, and we need to start here. Achowat (talk) 13:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
12. Support - Has consistently demonstrated good sense and willingness to do heavy lifting (in its many forms). --Orlady (talk) 13:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
13. Support - acceptably boring and drama free. Competent. No concerns. QU ^TalkQu 13:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
14. Support - As in strongest possible. Jc37 has proven to be an excellent admin with trustworthy judgment. I have no doubts at all that he will be an excellent bureaucrat as well. --Kbdank71 14:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
15. Support He will manage those extra buttons quite easily. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 14:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
16. Support Discussion in question 5 inspires confidence that the candidate understands the role of a crat. Monty₈₄₅ 15:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
17. Support Decent participation in RFA, along with a low non-controversial profile. Secret ^account 15:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
18. Support Will go good with the wrenches and screwdrivers.--Ankit Maity^Talk_Contribs 15:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
19. Support. Experienced and trustworthy. The candidate is quite helpful and knows how and when to consult others. Majoreditor (talk) 16:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
20. Support Seems thoroughly prepared. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
21. Support meh, sure. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
22. Support - one important factor to be considered here is whether or not the individual in question actually wants the responsibilities of a given role. I for instance do bloody little as an admin except edit protected templates occasionally, and could not unreasonably have my continued adminship open to question. This editor has done an extremely respectable job as an administrator, and I have no reservations that he would perform just as well in an expanded role. Also, I believe that by requesting this role, already knowing the responsibilities of adminship, he is indicating that he actually wants to assist in this important matter. He seems to know what he is doing as an admin, and what additional duties a bureaucrat has, and willing to take it on. I cannot see any reason to oppose. John Carter (talk) 17:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
23. Support. Reliable. Resourceful. Responsive. --MisterGugaruz (talk) 17:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
24. Support We need all the extra hell.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 17:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
25. Support Yes, Cyber, we need hell. :-) --Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 18:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
26. Support, why not?--В и к и T 18:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
27. Support — why not? --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 18:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
28. Support trustworthy and helpful admin. Dreadstar ☥ 19:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
29. Support per Cyberpower's brilliant rationale, and poking around indicates he is up for the task and can be trusted. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

    Weak support. Reasons for 'cratship not entirely convincing, but a good track record of administrative activity and other contributions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

30. Support - Yes please to Jc37, this user has always worked hard and could handle being a 'crat easily. Rcsprinter (deliver) 20:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
31. Support: Candidate is hard-working, level-headed, and willing. A hella good idea. -- Dianna (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
32. Support: Good creds, great answers to the above questions. — GabeMc (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
33. Support: Solid, reliable, a worthy candidate. Snappy (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
34. Yes, please. →Bmusician 02:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
35. Support: Thank you for your answers to my questions, which on the whole I found rather vague and non-committal.

    Your work as an admin is impeccable, and your regular participation at RfA (339 edits) is laudable - we really do need a core of regular voters rather than those who come out of the woodwork to vote with a vengeance or just because they like the candidate, or because they dislike adminship in general as an institution. Closing RfA is the nearest most users get to seeing the work of induividual bureaucrats, and indeed apart from routine name changing, is probably the most important feature of the job and its associated tools.

    With well over 300 contribs to RfA (339 edits) over the years , the frequent question stacking with your personal boilerplate (and encouraging others to use it) have given me pause over the years. Indiscriminate, and template questions are one of the evils of the process and encourages the newbie voters to copy the idea.

    RfA is one of your favourite pastures and due to your huge number of votes to RfAs, denied the chance of pasting your boilerplate and getting involved in the discussion, it may be difficult for you to take a purely neutral stance when closing one. I am therefore not entirely convinced that you would be able to keep your personal feelings towards a candidate out of your decision should you choose to close a close run RfA.

    I'm not sure about the 'friendly notices' placed on the talk pages of former noms for your RfA, the first of which failed for canvassing. It's not something I would have dared to do, especially on an RfB; in fact I requested users who were canvassed by an anon for my RfA not to come and vote. They were all close collaborators and would almost certainly have heard of the RfA anyway and supported, but they respected my requests to stay away.

    Nevertheless, you have strong support for your bid for 'cratship, and I'm sure you'll take the comments on board. I do not have any compelling reasons not to add my vote in this section. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

36. Support. Candidate has clue and is hard-working. Spencer^T♦C 04:45, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
37. Support I have no clue what a bureaucrat is, because we never seem to have these doggone RfB's ever </humor>, but I support for all the normal reasons. Buggie111 (talk) 04:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
38. Support. Seems a good candidate to me. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 08:55, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
39. Support I have no reason to think that jc37 will have any issues closing requests for adminships according to consensus, nor do I think he will have any issues with username changes etc. Also, if one is a snob about people editing on comic books and pop culture, that's a very good reason to nudge said people into dry administrative work and away from content creation? —Tom Morris (talk) 09:14, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
40. Support I have no reason to believe that JC would have any issues performing the role of a 'crat in anything less than an exemplary capacity. Best of luck, Mifter (talk) 12:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
41. Support On the whole I like the answer to the questions. Having considered the comments raised by The Uninvited Co., I still believe Jc37 will make a good bureaucrat. KTC (talk) 13:37, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
42. Support - I don't usually support self-noms, but I trust this guy. :) BOZ (talk) 16:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
43. Support FAs are overrated anyway. Seems to know what he's doing.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:49, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
44. I wasn't quite sold on Jc37 for bureaucratship when I skimmed through his candidate statement, which didn't seem to have much relevance to his credentials in applying for the role. But then I read his answers to the questions, and I have to say, I'm very impressed. Jc37 not only seems to understand the basics of bureaucratship, but he has also demonstrated an amazing comprehension of the grey area for discretion which is so important in closing RfAs. I trust him to use good judgement in making decisions, and I think he'll be an extremely effective bureaucrat. Consider this a strong support. Master&Expert (Talk) 17:37, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
45. Support - speaking as a 'crat from another project, I know this one has what it takes. bd2412 T 22:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
46. Support - Largely based on previous impressions, etc., but also in view of a modest review of contributions. I admit that I have, at least once, wondered about the relatively net benefit/harm of boilerplate questions, but I don't see that as affecting my view of this editor's ability to responsibly handle the specific tasks 'crats handle at RfAs. --joe decker^{talk to me} 22:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
47. Support - Garamond Lethe(talk) 23:13, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
48. Support Good candidate --Morning Sunshine (talk) 01:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
49. Support Anyone in good standing who wants to help the 'pedia is good in my book. Ishdarian 02:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
50. Support - Good user. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
51. I truly have been moved to support this bid. I appreciate your thoughtful reply to my question and if deference is placed upon the length of your answer, may it reflect more upon me for framing a question that has no potential for an abbreviated answer. I do wish you the best. My76Strat (talk) 05:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Reluctant Oppose. I like Jc37 and like to support contributors who have been here a long while. On the other hand, I believe bureaucratship requests should be approved based on the best interests of the project, and I don't think the project is well served by this request for a number of reasons:

   1. I went through the candidate's contributions to RfA for the last three years. During that time, Jc37 has voted twice: 1 2, both opposes on RfAs ultimately approved by the community. The other interactions have involved votes retracted prior to close and the addition of boilerplate questions to individual RfAs. Since I went through Jc37's contributions manually, I may have missed a vote or two but believe the overall point stands that this is not a style of interaction at RfA characteristic of someone in touch with the community and committed to deep involvement in the adminship process.
   2. Looking at article contributions, I can't find any substantive edits (additions of substantial new text or significant improvement of existing text) other than some pop-culture edits very early in the edit history. Since the bureaucrat role has expanded in scope since its inception and is likely to continue to do so, I believe that prospective 'crats should be in touch with the roots of the project, which are in collaborative editing of articles.
   3. Jc37 is recently returned from a lengthy wikibreak, leading me to wonder about the timing of this request.
   4. Given that the candidate has limited interest in the more mechanical user rename work, and given the low prevalence of RfAs these days, I wonder whether there is useful work Jc37 would be able to do.

   The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

   Hi. While you are of course welcome to your interpretation of my edits, I would have to sincerely disagree with your assessment of them. In article space in particular. Without looking, I remember working collaboratively to get Peanuts towards GA. I've cleaned up articles of many types including Caspar Milquetoast, Big Beautiful Woman, Robin (comics), etc. Not to mention work on a myriad amount of List pages. Most recently I started a stub for a requested article on a particular episode of Family Ties.

   So I find your opinion of my edits rather surprising. - jc37 22:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

   I did note that you have edited some of the pop culture topics, which I believe characterizes the subject areas you enumerate. I believe my point stands, as do my other concerns. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

   So what you're saying is that you have a problem with the "subject areas [I] enumerate"?

   Well, I'm sorry to hear that you apparently consider (by implication) subject areas such as comics, literature, film, and television (and whatever else you are grouping as "pop culture"), as not worthy subjects of editorial focus. I will respectfully disagree. Thank you for clarifying. (If in any way I'm misunderstanding you, please feel free to further clarify.) - jc37 03:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

2. Oppose. Thank you, UninvitedCompany, for reminding me of those RfA contributions. Jc37 is the worst offender for posting unconstructive, tedious boilerplate questions at RfA. It would be preferable that his power at RfA is not increased. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
3. I did think I would tend to support any competent RfB, but Axl and UninvitedCompany have raised really good points. I agree that your RfA opposes often leave something to be desired. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
4. Oppose. The incessant lengthy boilerplate RfA questions indicate, to me, a shallow understanding of RfA and how a candidate should be evaluated. Very concerning, given that bureaucrats need to make decisions on the outcomes of RfAs in, sometimes, the most difficult of circumstances. Further, to have continued with the boilerplate questions after requests to desist, demonstrates a lack of connection with the community and concern for its views. That's disastrous for a 'crat. There's more. In this edit I very politely asked Jc37, for the second time, to withdraw, or at least reconsider, a false allegation he had made in a substantially controversial MfD close. Having not replied the first time for whatever reason, in response to the second request he archived the section with a rather thin excuse about advice elsewhere which did not relate to that specific request. It's not the direction the MfD was closed in that's the concern (though it was certainly controversial), it's the running away from a problem that he had caused another editor while carrying out an administrator task. Although this was considerably more than a year ago, I've not seen anything to convince me that there's been a significant change. And it's a problem - "Bureaucrats are expected to determine consensus in difficult cases and be ready to explain their decisions". We are cautious about giving people admin tools to begin with, and 'crat is a sufficiently more sensitive role that I'd hope to see a glowing record, not this sort of thing. If the admin and Wikipedia space actions were outstanding, then the generally lackluster mainspace contributions wouldn't be a problem; but that's not the case here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
5. Oppose Far below the standard of usual bureaucrats, and (at best) mediocre as an administrator, as has been better said and amply documented by others.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
6. Oppose An editor forum shopping ANI && AN lacks judgement. Nobody Ent 11:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

   Huh? I posted the same note to AN and AN/I because I saw someone who was apparently contacted by outreach and appeared confused about editing on Wikipedia, with the hopes that others might help. All too often new editors are treated to WP:RBI without help, and in this case it seemed to me that this was possibly a case of confusion rather than vandalism. So I thought having others aware might get more possible help (or at the very least more eyes on this). And I see now that User:Bwilkins has attempted to.

   All that aside, I would think calling posting to two noticeboards (and before anyone else had responded) "forum shopping" would seem to be a bit of a tough sell. YMMV of course. - jc37 11:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral - Clearly trustworthy user but too much focus on the intricacies of policies. Policies are helpful to some extent, but harmful as well. As they are ever expanding they take a toll on users and direct efforts away from article editing with the time they take to argue over and discuss. Like all non article building activities, the time spent on them should be minimized while gaining as much of their positive effects as possible. You'll do fine, but please keep that in mind. - Taxman ^Talk 17:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
2. Disagree with Q9 from a sentimentalist viewpoint. Philosophically, I consider Wikipedia's goal to be encyclopedia first and community second, but a barnstar contains emotional value and treats a user with dignity. I have never appreciated the way most community members have reduced certain editors to mere numbers, vandal or not. And typos are inconsequential; they rarely detract from the encyclopedic experience. Perhaps more importantly, I have, on more than one occasion, been inclined to ask this user to refrain from asking more than two boring questions at RfA. I think RfA should invite creative answers; textbook questions have textbook answers, and textbook mistakes are easily resolved. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:47, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

   I'm not positive (and please let me know if I'm misunderstanding), but I think you may have misunderstood my answer in Q9. I believe I totally agree with you. The only reason I answered as I eventually did, is because the IP (if indeed a vandal - I was accepting the premise of the question) represented an issue which presumably (unfortunately) necessitated immediate action. - jc37 04:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

   I understand your answer. However, I disagree that most vandalism requires immediate action. (Although, that is because I tend to disagree with the manner in which we generally handle IP vandalism, which is by reducing the user to just a number to be blocked.) Regardless, Q9 is hardly a concern for me in comparison to your questions at RfA. But that is also a bit of an ideological disagreement. Good luck. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

3. Neutral. Seems a lovely enough bloke; I'm just having some trouble understanding what he actually intends to do with this. But whatever. -— Isarra ༆ 04:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
4. Neutral While he is a great editor and I see him around; I'm not pleased with answers to question #6 by Scottywong. He did not properly answer the questions. Dipankan ^{(Have a chat?)} 06:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
5. Before anyone misreads this, the quantity of crat actions doesn't matter. But I'm not sure what jc37 intends to do in any quantity whatsoever. By process of elimination from the answers to question 6 I assume we're talking about changing usernames and closing RfAs. Changing usernames is a case of literally applying a clear set of "rules" (for want of a less ambiguous word); closing nigh-on unanimous RfAs is a procedural matter. That leaves judging close RfAs. I'm not opposing because jc37 has demonstrated an understanding of consensus, but I'm not supporting because I have very little idea how jc37 would apply that to tight RfA calls. The only way you can really demonstrate that is to give opinions on tight RfAs as and when they happen. —WFC— 11:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

   Hi. What specifically would you like me to clarify? I would be happy to try to help assuage your concerns. - jc37 11:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

   I disagree with some of the points made in the oppose section (hence being here). But I guess the simplest way of assuaging my concerns would be to refute User:UninvitedCompany's first point. —WFC— 12:13, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

   I'm not sure which parts of his first point you're referring to, but first, please check this.

   Second, closing a discussion, no matter how "close" or "contentious" it may be, does not mean making a "supervote". Our job as closers is to assess the consensus of others. (I defined consensus in at least one of the questions above.)

   Third, that aside, if you are wondering about what my personal criteria is for personally supporting in an RfA, please look here.

   And finally, I've been a very active reader at RfA, and active in commenting in WT:RFA (as well as many associated surveys, polls and the like related to RfA). So I would have to disagree with User:UninvitedCompany's assertions. (However, they are, of course, welcome to their opinions.)

   Is there anything else you feel I'm missing in your concerns? - jc37 12:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

   (Moved to support) I don't particularly like red-linked talk pages. My76Strat (talk) 23:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

   I'm a bit confused by what you mean by this. Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:57, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

   I apologize for the ambiguity. It occurs to me this RfB deserves a corresponding talk page with edit stats and all. That being my only peeve is not enough to oppose, but sufficient for me to withhold support; for now.My76Strat (talk) 01:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

   I added the stats. Just to let you know, you could have easily added them. They are usually added by one of the first few editors who shows up to the discussion; however, it appears that it hasn't been occurring recently. It isn't on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Vibhijain either. I'd add it, but I literally need to leave right now. Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)