The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Final (52/1/1); Ended Fri, 29 Dec 2006 15:41:20 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. Hiding Talk 17:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• With a few hours to go (and presuming that some sort of reversal does not occur), I thought I would take a moment and offer some "thank yous". (And hopefully to not sound like an awards show : ) - I do want thank the three above who nominated me, particularly Hiding for getting the ball rolling this time around. And thanks to everyone who commented. I appreciate you taking a moment of your time. Due to previous concerns (noted above) I've decided to not post talk page thank you templates to the commenters below (though a few of the templates that I've seen have been rather original : ) - Should anyone wish one, drop me a request and I'll see what I can cobble together : ) - Anyway, thank you again, and I hope everyone has a great day : ) - jc37 10:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Hiding, 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)[reply]

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.)

(Please note some editors believe this to be an inappropriate question: see the discussion on the RfA talk page)

A:

General comments

• See Jc37's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

Discussion

Support

1. Support No reason to oppose. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 13:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support, I have good experiences with this user and consider him level-headed and an asset to the project. >Radiant< 14:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support per Radiant. --teh tennisman 14:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. I actually had this watchlisted before this was opened, having run into it on some talk page I needed to comment on. No big problems here, although a bit longer after the last RfA might have been nice. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support Terence Ong 16:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support. Not really any reason not to. Pikminlover ^Meep!" 16:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support. My interactions (ok watching him and Kbdank71 interact, I'm not sure I've ever directly talked to Jc37) have all been positive. I know he's interested in CFD, which I haven't had time for for a while, so at the very least he'll fill a niche. ;) Syrthiss 16:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support. Hardworking and friendly. Having more non-minor mainspace edits would have been nice, but still, definitely sysop material. —LestatdeLioncourt 17:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support Trustworthy editor. Xoloz 17:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support No concerns here. A good editor. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 19:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support Looks fine to me. (aeropagitica) 20:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support. Seen candidate around, only positive impressions. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 20:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
13. Strong Support, need I even say anything? — Seadog_MS 21:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support --Majorly (Talk) 21:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support: No reason to not support! sign here • HAPPY HOLIDAYS! — s d 3 1 4 1 5 21:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support I supported before, I'll support again. Agent 86 21:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support Seems fine, and we need more admins. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support. Sure, why not? Decent contributor and active at processes. Michaelas10 (Talk) 22:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support per above. Addhoc 23:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support. Definitely qualified this time around. Nishkid64 01:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support - we have a strong candidate here. Yuser31415 04:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support. A very good editor. --Carioca 04:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support-Can't find a single thing wrong, total trust.Ganfon 06:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support. Conscientious, level-headed editor. Knows Wikipedia policy and guidelines. When we disagreed about an article once, Jc37 kept cool and worked hard to iron it out smoothly. Jc37 assumes good faith, works to improve articles and help others learn. This is really someone we can count on to make things work. Doczilla 06:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support a good candidate --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 09:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
26. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 12:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support Will make a fine admin. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 12:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support. Looks like a good candidate. No concerns. Nephron  T|C 16:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support. No concerns here. Looks like a sensible user. I am sure he can work on the lack of the image experience at a later stage. Besides, he may even have a commons accounts and already doing that? Asterion^talk 17:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support looks good to me.-- danntm ^T _C 17:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support. Relatively low mainspace edits, but otherwise great candidate. --Wizardman 18:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support well aware with Wikipedia's policy and good contibutor to CFD. Shyam ^(T/C) 19:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support - Most of my involvement with Jc37 has been at WP:UCFD, but I have found Jc to be a very responsible editor. Jc has been very good at explaining the reason for any nominations and has done a great job at interpreting and applying Wikipedia guidelines and interpreting consensus. Jc has also handled most disagreements and controversies very calmly. I believe this editor will make some excellent contributions as an admin. —Cswrye 05:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support - Strong candidate. Jpeob 05:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support No problem. Alex43223 ^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 06:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support, we need some more help in those areas. // I c e d K o l a 17:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support - strong candidate, has addressed prior concerns, and wants to do work in areas where additional sysop help would be welcome. With regard to the opposer's rationale, I don't think it's reasonable to expect candidates to have experience in every area. Newyorkbrad 19:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support Just H 20:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support While image experience is somewhat important, the project, project talk, main, and talk namespaces are more vital, and the candidate has many edits in all of those areas. As Newyorkbrad stated, experience in every area shuld not be expected. –The Great Llama^{sign here} 21:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support Science4sail 01:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
41. yes, and merry christmas ;) --dario vet ^_^ (talk) 09:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support Looks good to me! Good Luck! WikiMan53 T/C edits 00:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support. Michael 21:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support - impressed at the nomination and two co-noms!! Jenny Wong 00:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support Good user, I see no reason to oppose. ← ANAS ^Talk? 01:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support Jorcoga^† 02:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support Excellent candidate. As much as I understand T-rex's objection, I agree with Newyorkbrad that it's not entirely reasonable to expect candidates to be experts in every single area. alphachimp. 08:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
48. Oppose I prefer to see at least 50% of edits in Template Talk and by that I mean Support. Excellent candidate. Canadian-Bacon 17:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support Seems reasonable and level-headed. IronDuke 01:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support - Extensive experience with CfD offsets relatively low mainspace edits. Will fill a needed role. Gimmetrow 16:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support Far more qualified than you were last time. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 01:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
52. support --dario vet ^_^ (talk) 15:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Oppose - per optional statement, and lack of image experience [1] [2] --T-rex 22:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

1. Neutral, leaning towards oppose with the same rationale as Agent 86. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.