Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jc37 - 2

Jc37

Voice your opinion (0/0/0); Scheduled to end 13:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Jc37 (talk · contribs) – Jc37 had a previous run at adminship, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jc37 closed 4 October, which foundered on issues with the answering of questions and the advertising of the RFA itself. I can't really speak as to whether those issue are resolved, they can only be answered by the candidate, literally in the former and behaviourally in the latter. But I think that proves somewhat that Jc was on the right path, those are procedural issues rather than signs that a user will make a bad admin. They point to lack of experience, and I think that in the almost three months since, Jc has grown in experience. To be honest, I think in the days that followed that closure Jc demonstrated the nous we expect from an admin. The user just carried on as normal. Jc has impressed me as someone willing to discuss, someone willing to reason and someone willing to listen, and also someone willing to research the guidance and policies and engage with them. I don't want to hog the floor, so I'll leave room for other nominators to expand, but I think this comment really indicates Jc can be trusted by the community. Steve block Talk 17:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Co-nomination: Jc37 helps out tremendously with CFD. I have no doubt he'll be a great asset to the community as an admin. I'm happy to co-nominate him. --Kbdank71 22:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Co-nomination: Jc37 is a great partner in the proposing and evaluating of nominations on Wikipedia:User categories for discussion, as well as elsewhere. It would help a lot if he had the tools to be even more useful. He would be a great member of the admin team.--Mike Selinker 23:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

• As I have mentioned elsewhere, it's "something" to see those who you respect say such things about you. Anyway... I accept the nomination. - jc37 13:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The candidate may make an optional statement here:

• As noted above, in my previous RfA, I took an action that some voters considered "Spamming". While I didn't and don't think I violated the rules of WP:SPAM#Canvassing (see my previous RfA for a fuller explanation), I later decided that it was nonetheless likely a mistake for other reasons. I'm not going to repeat the action during this RfA, but just plan to merely put up a userpage notice of some kind (which has been previously discussed on WT:RFA). - jc37 13:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A: As suggested above, primarily CfD and UCFD. At the moment, Mike Selinker is doing most of the work at WP:UCFD, and could probably use some help. And there has been a bit of a backlog at WP:CfD of late. (I know that I miss Kbdank71 : ) - There are also things such as requested moves (which also seems to have a backlog at the moment). - jc37 13:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: (Interpreting this question to include "roughly since your last RfA".) - jc37 13:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

1. Prior to my last RfA I had just finished discussions related to WP:NCC, which was then implemented. That, and the discussions and work on it since, is something I'm rather proud of. I may not have written every word (I incorporated several parts of the previous naming convention, for example), but the order and design primarily were a result of my initial proposal and the the discussion(s) thereof.
2. I did much of the editing/organisational work on Peanuts (as did User:Mike1 - who has apparently since left Wikipedia - and Steve block, who did much of the reference work). We'll likely nominate it for Featured article soon. Related to this, there was also quite a bit of work in splitting off Peanuts in popular culture from the various Peanuts-related articles.
3. I went through all the sub-categories of Category:Wikipedia, including some categories which weren't subcategorised (let's hear it for Special:Prefix search : ) - And we subsequently deleted/renamed/merged, and in general we have developed a consensus of collaboration and grouping for such categories. It's been a fair amount of work, but I think it's been worth it : )
4. There was a recent RfAr in which incivility in edit summaries was discussed. I suggested: this. As a follow up question from User:Hamster Sandwich, I clarified with this. Now I have no way of knowing for certain if those suggestions resulted in this, and eventually the change noted here, but it's nice to think they did : )

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: Well, there was an incident involving another user who, at the time, was acting rather disruptively on CfD, and who, at one point, posted a rather inflammatory notice at WP:AN/I. The disruption was not limited to just me or my CfD nomination(s) - the user was involved in another disruption, though in that case, the other user(s) involved apparently weren't as successful at keeping their calm, and greater problems began to ensue. To more directly answer the question, I dealt with it in attempting to discuss, even in the face of melodramatics, accusations, and various other emotional responses, and realising that it was becoming increasingly obvious that the user was not actually reading to understand my responses, but just to fuel the debate (essentially: "I'm right, you're wrong", with accusations of subterfuge and lying, among other things). I sought the advice of others whom I respected (which eventually led to them becoming involved in the situation, one as a "third party" offering suggestions and an opinion on the category discussion, and the other as a "third party" admin, who also dealt directly with the CfD disruptions, closing all nominations as "no consensus"). After all of that, I stepped back from the situation for a time, and eventually left a response on the user's talk page, with the suggestion that they may respond or not, at their choosing. They have not, and I've let the matter drop for now, though I fully intend to eventually re-nominate the categories so that they will conform to current naming conventions. In the future... I honestly don't know, though unless time is of the essence, I think getting input from others would be a priority. (I'm a firm believer in "many eyes".) Note: I'm intentionally not naming exact diffs, or usernames. As I mentioned above, I'm allowing the matter to drop. I merely am commenting on it since it's the only time I know of that I've ever been a subject of a WP:AN/I posting. - jc37 13:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Optional questions from Malber (talk · contribs)

4. What do the policy of WP:IAR and the essay WP:SNOW mean to you and how would you apply them?

A:

5. Is there ever a case where a punitive block should be applied?

A:

6. What would your thought process be to determine that a business article should be deleted using CSD:G11?

A:

7. What is your age? (Candid and thoughtful responses are appreciated, however if you feel uncomfortable giving a specific answer, providing an age range is also appreciated.)

A:

General comments

---

Discussion

Support

Oppose

Neutral