Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jo-Jo Eumerus

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dtrebbien (talk | contribs) at 11:33, 29 June 2016 (→‎Support: support). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jo-Jo Eumerus

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (103/29/4); Scheduled to end 11:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Nomination

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs) – Jo-Jo Eumerus has been with us since 2012, and has become particularly active in the past twelve months. His specialist subject is South American physical geography, and he's taken three volcano articles, Aucanquilcha, Uturunku and Coropuna to good article status. He's also a regular at Did you know?, with numerous volcano articles hitting the main page.

Outside of article work, Jo-Jo Eumerus has been busy checking copyright violations. He's got a prolific CSD log, with a particular flair towards catching copyvios on both articles and files. He's a regular at Files for discussion and Media Copyright Questions, and is keen to offer his opinion on the copyright status of images both here and on Commons.

In his own words, "both of which (FFD / PUF) need a bit of attention" and again, in his own words, "Wikipedia:Files for discussion has had a backlog going back a few months recently .... The venue could use some more activity, especially since many issues are not complicated copyright issues or stuff like that." He's right, we really do need more admins looking at these things, so here's one for your consideration. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:02, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination

It is my pleasure to co-nominate Jo-Jo Eumerus, who is obviously and eminently qualified to be an administrator. They are well-rounded, with almost a hundred articles created, including several Good Articles and several dozen DYKs. They understand deletion well and have a reasonable acquaintance with all the various noticeboards such as UAA, AIV, RFPP, and ANI - even Village Pump (policy) once in a while. But the majority of their work has been with files and copyright issues - areas that most of us have very little familiarity with. They are very active at WP:FFD and contribute helpfully at WP:Media copyright questions. They intend to use their admin tools primarily in those areas, where additional help is definitely needed. They have strong communication skills and an invariably courteous and helpful demeanor. I could find no red flags and no drama; I trust them with the tools; and I believe they will be a strong addition to our admin corps. --MelanieN (talk) 22:37, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I am gladly accepting the nomination.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: Chiefly, image maintenance is my planned area of work. That is, to close WP:FFD discussions which have been open for a while and are backlogged, which would be my starting priority. As well as handling the various deletion requests (F9 and orphaned non-free images, for example) that concern images. I also plan on working on article copyright issues - I've interrupted that work lately because the copyvio bots were inactive most of the time. Later I may branch out to other areas of admin activity, but I don't have as much experience in them so they would not be a priority.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Expanding the various pitiful stubs such as Uturunku up to GA status, as well as the new articles I've been writing on Andean volcanoes, are probably the contributions I'd consider "my best" - and I have a list of articles to further write or expand. Yes, they are for the most part niche subjects but I do firmly believe that having good articles on each suitable topic is better for Wikipedia than having bad ones or none. Also, the cooperation with copy-editors on some of the aforementioned articles is something I value.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: There are two types of conflicts I've been in that gave me some stress. The first is when I get pointed out that I am wrong about some policy or copyright issue. In these cases I will listen and then usually study up on the policy in question to avoid a repeat of the error. The second type is when I tag a number of pages and files for deletion for being inappropriate in some way (for example, for being copyright violations) and the uploader/creator of the pages in question comes asking - either on the talk pages of the pages in question or less commonly on mine about what the problem was and how to fix it. In these cases I often try to explain the issue to them and suggest ways how to avoid it in the future - for example, suggesting that the uploader ask other Wikipedians who have access to a locality to take photos of said locality.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Additional question from Tigraan
4. With all due respect, I feel you either misunderstood or intentionally evaded standard question #3. It is not about what situations could, possibly, lead to a conflict; it is about instances of real, open conflict involving you on one end. So, let me rephrase it as follows. Have you ever been interacting with another editor, on talk pages / via edit summaries / etc., with whom you disagreed, and felt that either of you failed to follow WP:CIVIL or was close to do so?
"No, I have yet to experience anything like that" is an acceptable answer; the question is more of an opportunity to admit and address possible skeletons in the closet. TigraanClick here to contact me 13:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A: Technically, I was referring to real issues/disagreements I have been in, not merely hypothetical ones - true conflicts are something I try to avoid, I've certainly had disagreements. As for disputes that came close to violating WP:CIVIL, I honestly don't remember any dispute that went that far down, I tend to work hard at avoiding personal attacks and insults. I don't remember every single interaction I have been in, though, so I may be omitting something - I tend to remember positive interactions a bit more clearly than negative ones. Hope this answers the question a bit more clearly.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Lourdes
5. Give a specific case where you will apply 30-500 beyond currently allowed conditions?
A: Theoretically if I got an article which attracts severe disruption from editors which can't be stopped by regular semiprotection and if blocking isn't called for (say because of persistent block evasion) but on the other hand the full protection of the article would cause too much hassle, for example if the article is very popular and receiving good edits from editors meeting 30/500 I'd consider applying that kind of protection.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Epicgenius
6. Do you plan to do any other administrative task outside image maintenance and copyright violations? I know FFD is backlogged, and I appreciate that you want to tackle the backlog, but, I was just wondering if you plan on doing other tasks at all, like anti-vandalism, articles for deletion, or page protection.
A: Yes, I do plan in working on AIV but as a lower priority sort of thing. And follow AN, I know the noticeboards don't have a good reputation but I like being able to help out people when I can, and I see such requests on AN from time to time. AfD and RfPP are less certain, I only sporadically work there.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Cryptic
7. How would you have closed Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 June 19#File:David T. Abercrombie.jpg? (Note that it's currently at deletion review, which feel free to read, but please ignore the recently-found free image noted there.)
A: Upon some thinking I would probably have relisted the discussion, with the consideration that a) an argument for the image meeting the non-free criteria in the David T. Abercrombie (ignoring the free image for a moment) article has been made and not contested so far and b) there hasn't been much discussion in either direction about its inclusion History of Abercrombie & Fitch; there is no entitlement towards including non-free images anywhere but I am not very comfortable with removing the image from that article on so little non-unanimous commentary. Alternatively, I would not have closed the discussion at all but asked instead whether there is an argument for WP:NFCC#8 being met in the history article, seeing as this is the more unclear aspect of the discussion.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Glrx
8. Infamous pirate Jack Sparrow was born and lives in India. The King of England offers him clemency and the governorship of Jamaica if he gives up piracy. Jack accepts, but he needs a picture passport. In 1919, he gets an Indian passport and sets sail to Port Royal. There he dies of malaria in 1920; his possessions (including his passport) are sent to Ms. Sparrow (his wife) in India. In 1938, a British author asks his Nobel Laureate friend to drop in on Ms. Sparrow during his upcoming visit to India. During that visit, Ms. Sparrow gives Mr. Laureate the passport. In 1940, the Briish author publishes a book about pirates and includes the passport picture of Jack Sparrow. Mr. Laureate dies of leukemia in 1968. Today, Ms. Laureate claims to have the copyright of the passport photo. Who holds the copyright? When did or when will the copyright expire?
A:
Follow-up question from Lourdes
9. After the IAR protect move you undertook without going for the policy-defined community consensus requirement, as you have suggested you would in #5, there is a community discussion at ANI to ban you from using the protect button. Your detractors mention that as per defined policy, WP:30-500 can only be applied either through Arbcom/Arbcom enforcement or through clear community consensus – and that no administrator including you has been provided any leeway otherwise. You have an opportunity to post one paragraph at ANI to defend your stance of rejecting predefined policy in this area, based on which the community would either recommend limiting your admin protect tools or letting you go. What would that paragraph be?
A:

Discussion

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

Support
  1. Support Obviously. He's a good content creator, and will be an asset to the project as an admin. First vote! ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support it'd be great to see an editor with such experience in FFD work be able to mop up the backlog, as well as help out with the CSDs they are so very apt at identifying. Would be a net positive and some -- samtar talk or stalk 11:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Good candidate. I have seen him doing good work here many times. Why not? Jianhui67 T★C 11:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support as nominator. I said everything I need to above. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support I've had my eye on this RfA for a while. My impression of the candidate has always been good and he works diligently in the file namespace and with copyright issues, areas where we really need more admins. I only say that I hope he does not burn out at FFD - I personally couldn't hack it, but let's hope Jo-Jo can. BethNaught (talk) 12:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Wait, you are not an admin? SSTflyer 12:19, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Yes, yes a thousand times yes! Excellent content creator, very level-headed and willing to tackle some of the trickier areas of adminship. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:23, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support I don't have any set criteria other than a single "quick-pass" criteria. If I look at a name and think "Wait, he/she isn't an admin yet?", then that's an obvious indication that they should be an admin in the absence of serious issues. ~ RobTalk 12:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support, based on review. Good content creation. As for the things that cause the editor "some stress", breathe deep and don't let them push your buttons. Overall seems to be one that would do okay with the mop. Kierzek (talk) 12:40, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support I have worked with him/her at GAN. Jo-Jo Eumerus is definitely hardworking and an excellent content-creator on volcanoes. He/She has always been collaborative with me and others I have seen him/her working with. All in all someone our community really needs. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 12:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Babymissfortune 12:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Net positive. Good record at AfD; good CSD record. Lots of general positives. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 13:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support – Of course. Has my full trust. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Thanks for being willing to take on administrator responsibilities. TeriEmbrey (talk) 13:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. Jo-Jo Eumerus is a qualified editor whose work evinces the qualities needed in a good administrator. In particular, I'm impressed by their copyright- and FFD-related work. /wiae /tlk 14:12, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support as co-nom. --MelanieN (talk) 14:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support very qualified candidate. -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Per co-noms. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. Shearonink (talk) 14:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Based on such nominations, I think this editor is worthy of my support. In addition, I think we going towards a 100% endorsed admin. A first? Debresser (talk) 15:01, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope, not by a long shot. Unanimously supported RfAs are rare, but they do happen. I just wish it were a more common occurrence. Kurtis (talk) 15:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Strong contributions and well-rounded candidate. Adminship is not a big deal and they will obviously be a net-positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support - I was expecting this RfA and I'm pleased to offer my support. Jo-Jo Eumerus is eminently qualified for the job. Kurtis (talk) 15:26, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Seen them around, can't recall any problems. Here for the right reasons and has a clear admin area where they want to work. Ticks all the boxes really. Jenks24 (talk) 15:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support (edit conflict) - This person wasn't an admin? --allthefoxes (Talk) 15:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. (edit conflict) We need more admin help at wp:FfD deletions and elsewhere. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:31, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. We need more admins and Jo-Jo Eumerus would be a good one. They meet WP:RFA42's criteria of trust, experience, and content creation. Chickadee46 (talk|contribs) (WP:MCW) 15:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support, based on the high quality of the candidate's content contributions. Kablammo (talk) 15:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. Yes. Good contributions and good head on shoulders. --NeilN talk to me 16:10, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support I have seen Jo-Jo Eumerus slowly working their way towards adminship over the past several months. While the direction has been obvious, it has luckily not been too obvious; they have not been jumping all over the place to earn extra points. Instead, they have done quiet work improving the areas they are genuinely interested in. Widr (talk) 16:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support I was wondering when this was going to happen. Good luck, and per above.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 17:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Model editor. Hopefully, model administrator too... Lourdes 17:12, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Suppport No substantive concerns. Quantitatively, mainspace edits are a bit low, but that seems to be because Jo-Jo does a lot with a little. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support - CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support - in the "negative" column, I found vandals reports without final warning and declined (but legit) CSD nominations from a year ago. Hardly anything, especially since "one year ago" is actually "11k edits ago". I cannot say I like the answers to question 3 (and 4) but I see they have been briefed this way, and frankly it is probably the way to go at AfD these days. In the "positive" column... Well, pretty much everything others said. TigraanClick here to contact me 18:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Every time I see him make a request for admin action on a file, I wonder why he isn't one himself. (An admin, not a file. Though I'm sure he would make a fine file as well.). Katietalk 18:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Good candidate. Deserves the job! Class455fan1 (talk) 18:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 18:31, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. Yep, FFD needs more admins, and I know the nominee has the know-how to get those discussions closed. Steel1943 (talk) 18:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support per noms. Looks to be an editor we should all strive to emulate. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support, do not see any issues.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Good candidate. --I am One of Many (talk) 20:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support checks out good for me! Atsme📞📧 20:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support No concerns. Gap9551 (talk) 21:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Fine candidate, especially since you want to work on copyright issues where we could use more hands. On that note, give toollabs:copypatrol at try! :) — MusikAnimal talk 21:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Fully qualified candidate with plenty of experience under their belt. Wants to work in a highly backlogged admin area, FFD. Why the hell not? Omni Flames (talk) 22:10, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support I never had any interaction with JJE but everything seems fine here. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:12, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support - Seems to have good judgement and demeanor.- MrX 22:23, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. I'm ready to no longer be the newest admin and this is a great candidate to take my place on the totem pole. -- Tavix (talk) 22:26, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. No concerns + I need to support a fellow geographer. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support: yes, please. With such well researched co-nominations (and I too can find no negatives) I highly support. You win my trust in both areas of concern: knowledge and experience in the areas to which you wish to devote your skills; and secondly: no drama! Indeed, you do "display an invariably courteous and helpful demeanor". This is actually and faithfully my first requirement for an admin. Can't wait to see you mopping ツ Fylbecatulous talk 22:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support, no issues here. Nakon 23:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support, no issues, and a clear WP:NETPOS.Tazerdadog (talk) 23:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support - Excellent candidate, No issues!, Good luck :) –Davey2010Talk 23:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support as a valid reason for administrative tools has been provided and I don't see any concerns here. — Music1201 talk 00:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  55. support yes per all the above. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:37, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support Appears to understand AfD, would like to see some more BLP work done at some point, as they do not appear to have done much content editing on them or worked on the policy noticeboards. Collect (talk) 00:43, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support Happy to pile on. Good content creator, wants to work on the backlogs—what's not to like? Miniapolis 00:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support -FASTILY 00:59, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support Their history here gives me every reason to think they will make a fine admin. HighInBC Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 01:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. We're in desperate need of more admins in media file-related areas, and I've seen nothing but exemplary work from Jo-Jo Eumerus in this area. — ξxplicit 01:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support A well-rounded contributor with experience in several areas, including content creation and DYK. Appears to be quite knowledgeable as to policies. Plans to work in areas with serious backlogs. Enough experience to show good judgment and demeanor. Trustworthiness fully established. Glad to support. Donner60 (talk) 02:17, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support Checking his/her contributions, most of his/her edits are in good article status, so I guess its time to have another good admin here in English Wikipedia. Hamham31Heke!KushKush! 02:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 03:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support- I've run across Jo-Jo Eumerus here and there, predominantly from seeing their name on various speedy candidates. They seems to be a solid candidate and one that would work well with the administrative tools. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Suport As a fellow admin who was promoted based on working with file deletions, I can say that there is always not enough admins working in that area because most of the new admins are focused on CSD and AfD. I haven't been supporting many RfAs lately but it appears that the requirements to become an admin went on an exponential scale which would make the current admin drought situation even more dire. So it is great to have fully qualified candidate going after an area that needs more attention (and love) OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support - This user's contributions thus far indicate a solid history and understanding of the areas he plans to work in. Every reason to believe this would be a real net positive. Enthusiastic support for this editor. ERK talk 04:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  67. —Kusma (t·c) 10:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support. Trusted editor. — Mediran [talk] 10:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support, obvious. Graham87 11:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support I have looked through Jo-Jo Eumerus' talk archives and I see no issues. On the contrary, the user has a fair amount of involvement with new editors and I found the responses and answers to new editors' questions diplomatic, friendly, and informative. I think that Jo-Jo Eumerus' would do a great job at WP:FFD. A well-rounded candidate, I think that Jo-Jo Eumerus would be an excellent administrator. « D. Trebbien (talk) 11:33, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose


Neutral


General comments
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Jo-Jo_Eumerus&oldid=727500767"