Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jerem43

Jerem43

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (10/0/2); Scheduled to end 11:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

Jerem43 (talk · contribs) – I would consider it an honor to nominate Jerem43 for adminship on Wikipedia. I have collaborated with him on several topics and have found the user to always be helpful, fair, and sober-minded, even when we don't agree. He has also done some great work on templates (even receiving a barnstar for this work) and the project as a whole would greatly benefit from this user having a couple of extra buttons to help keep things tidy and orderly. youngamerican (wtf?) 18:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

• I thank you for the nomination, I accept it. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 01:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: Primarily vandalism related details, RFPP and the like.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: The templates that help establish Portals and WikiProjects. They simplify these tasks and make layout changes a lot easier. You can see examples of what I mean on the WP:Food, P:Food and P:Drink.

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: Yes, I have been in conflict with others. I have found that my attitudes have changed over time when confronted with problems with other users. First I try to step back and allow the situation to cool, and then later use the tools provide on WP to settle the situation. The trick is to think before you act and use the preview button before you add something that is improper.

Additional optional questions from Backslash Forwardslash

4. You are patrolling RFPP when you notice a new editor making large scale edits on page. All the edits have been reverted by two established users, who refer to a poll conducted three months ago as the 'consensus'. The page has been listed on RFPP by a third editor, who wishes to remain clear of the dispute. The new editor is becoming increasingly frustrated, and has begun to receive warnings about making personal attacks from the two established users. What administrative actions would you take, if any?

A:

Additional optional questions from S Marshall

5. I've been criticised for asking hypothetical XfD-related questions, so I'm using a real one. How would you have closed this CfD discussion? Please explain your thought processes in assessing the consensus in some detail.

A:

General comments

• Links for Jerem43: Jerem43 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Jerem43 can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Jerem43 before commenting.

Discussion

• Comment – Just letting you know... the disambiguation template goes at the bottom of disambiguation pages, and usually you should put "[Disambig. article title] may refer to:" at the beginning of the article. — ^{\`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`/} (talk • contribs) 11:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support - first glance looks good: solid percentage of mainspace contribs, solid talkpage usage, etc. May change if horrible issues are brought up, but I see no problems yet. → ROUX ₪ 11:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
2. Support as nom. youngamerican (wtf?) 11:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
3. First look seems rather concerning (skimpy answers to questions being the first red flag) but further investigation shows that the user is on the whole a very constructive one. I was going to go neutral but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. (also a tad worried over age but nowadays who cares?)  GARDEN  says no to drama 11:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

   Age? What did I miss? → ROUX ₪ 12:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

   Well, considering that Jeremy is a "25-year veteran of the [fast food] industry", I wouldn't think he'd be too young to be an admin... :) Jafeluv (talk) 12:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

   Woops. That's what you get for assuming, I guess. I figured the signs pointed to a preteen but evidently not. Apologies. (Then again, maybe I don't like older admins!)  GARDEN  says no to drama 13:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

4. Trustworthy editor with good contributions. Your brief answers to the questions and the fact that you've been around since 2006 and this is your first RfA indicate that you probably don't consider adminship to be such a big deal (do correct me if I'm wrong). I see you didn't even mention your GA contributions (Burger King and Burger King legal issues, at least) in your answer to Q2. This may be just plain modesty or a conscious omission based on how candidates' "audited contributions" have been handled in RfA recently, but in either case I like it. Good luck. Jafeluv (talk) 12:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
5. Support → prior interactions with this user have been both positive & productive. –xeno^talk 13:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
6. Support His contributions to Wikipedia and its various projects has shown Jeremy to be an effective editor and overall contributor. The additional tools will only serve to help him to continue the quest to improve our space here.--Chef Tanner (talk) 13:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
7. Support No problems that I can see.--Giants27 (c|s) 13:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
8. Support Unless I'm missing something flagrant. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 13:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
9. Support He looks like a good contributor to me. – DakPowers (Talk) 14:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
10. Support Keepscases (talk) 15:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose for now, see comment above; I think admins should know basic rules of how to create disambig. pages. — ^{\`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`/} (talk • contribs) 11:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully submit that is incredibly nitpicky. Creating disambig pages has nothing to do with the admin skillset. Have you any reason to believe the user would not be capable with admin functions? → ROUX ₪ 11:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I must agree with roux. If putting a template in the wrong spot disqualifies one from adminship, I can think of a couple of places where arbcom could have stripped me. youngamerican (wtf?) 11:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Without making any judgment one way or the other, perhaps we can attribute this oppose to being a reaction to CrazyInSane's own RfA, closed just 4 days ago, in a similar vein as this comment.  Frank  |  talk  11:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Frank, I think that's a little below the belt. While I don't agree that one mistake in 30k edits is enough to oppose someone's adminship, people do have different standards. CIS is opposing based on the candidate's knowledge of the basics of editing, and has every right to do so. Assuming external motives without sufficient evidence isn't exactly assuming good faith in your part. Jafeluv (talk) 12:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Further comment, to the degree any is necessary, on my talk page.  Frank  |  talk  12:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Why you would wikilink "attribute this oppose" to Wikipedia's "assume good faith" policy is beyond me; it's quite ironic, actually. My oppose (as noted, "for now") is due to the candidate's apparent lack of knowledge in the general editing realm. Knowing the basics of introducing an article is a bare minimum prerequisite for adminship, I would think. Nonetheless, I am continuing to review his contributions and may change my vote if deemed necessary. — ^{\`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`/} (talk • contribs) 12:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't going to say this as I assumed someone else would - but the {{disambiguation}} template is one of very few maintenance templates that go on the bottom of the article - most (80-90% most likely) go at the top.  GARDEN  says no to drama 13:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Right, but he also did not introduce the article, he just listed the articles needing disambiguation. I know it's not a big deal, but it's something an administrator should have read up on already. — ^{\`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`/} (talk • contribs) 13:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure how you can justify "apparent lack of knowledge in the general editing realm" when the user has over ten thousand edits to mainspace alone, and all but 389 of them manual (not automated) edits. You may wish to rethink this. → ROUX ₪ 13:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral for the time being. Given the response to my oppose vote, I've realized that basing my vote solely on one aspect of knowledge in mainspace editing may have been misguided. — ^{\`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`/} (talk • contribs) 13:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
2. Please consider attitude and behaviors that have been recently exemplified before you vote.152.16.10.191 (talk) 15:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)