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

Final: (53/32/5); closed by bibliomaniac15 on 04:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jerem43 (talk · contribs) – This is a self nomination. I was originally nominated for adminship by YoungAmerican about 15 months ago. Coming out of that discussion, I learned of several issues I needed to address at and have been working on improving myself and my interactions in the time since the closure of that RfA. I believe that I have grown as an editor and contributor since that discussion, and hope the community will give me another chance at the position of administrator.

I have been editing since September 2006, and have been concentrating heavily in the Food and Drink areas, but have branched out to other articles. I have accumulated over 32,000 edits since then and am continuing to learn to be a better contributor. I have taken over the maintence of the Food, Drink, Wine and Beer Portals and the Food and Drink WikiProject and the various related task forces since the retirement of Chris Tanner, our projects primary administrator. I try to be diligent in confronting vandalism and I attempt to warn and submit vandals when deemed necessary. I have been working to ensure that newer members feel welcome when they begin editing and correct any errors without making them feel unappreciated. I strongly support Wikipedia and its goals of free access to clear and concise information. It is my belief that if I was granted the position of an administrator on Wikipedia, I would be able to better serve its contributors by being a definitive person that they can come to for assistant with their efforts to improve the Encyclopedia. I thank you for your consideration and look forward to answering your questions.Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 22:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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: Mainly house cleaning in the aforementioned projects and portals, but I have been following the Administrators Noticeboard/Incident pages daily and would step up there as well. I have also been looking at the intervention against vandalism reporting page and would help to appropriately block or comment on vandals reported. It is my intention to use the tools for page protection to help keep vandals at bay. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 23:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

A: I have begun following the good article nominations to help bring food and drink articles to GA status. However, as I previously stated my work on templates that help simplify the creation and maintenance of portals, projects as well as navigate articles are some of my better work. In the article space, I have been a major contributor to the fast food articles, especially the Burger King-related ones. I enjoy working on these classes of articles because so many people dismiss these companies as simply fast food joints, when in fact the subjects of these articles are major corporations that have positive and negative impacts on the global economy. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 23:37, 2 December 2010 (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: I have had several stressful conflicts in my history here, a good deal of them on the Korean cuisine article. It has taken a good deal of time, but I have managed to learn to not allow my anger to dictate my actions. When there are times that I feel that I cannot continue to interact with others, I will often step away form the discussion as needed so I do not excaborate the situation. If I feel that my interactions are not neutral due to one reason or another, I will try to bring in an outside, neutral party that can possibly help bring about a good consensus. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 23:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional optional question from The Utahraptor

4. Imagine for a second that you are an administrator. You have blocked an IP that was reported to AIV for vandalism. The IP requests to be unblocked, and in their unblock request, they promise to be good if they are unblocked. What do you do?

A: I would have to look into the history of the address, and see how problematic it has been in the past as well as looking at whom the address is associated with. Unless there was a distinct pattern of vandalism in the history, I would assume good faith and unblock the address. If the address were a shared address, from a school or other institution, I would also encourage him/her to create an account to differentiate themselves from others would use that address for mischief. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 16:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from /ƒETCHCOMMS/

5. Do you think the current warning/blocking system is too harsh? Too lenient? Why? When should you block a user who was received no warnings?

A: I feel the system works well but not perfectly, the warnings are concise and blocking mechanisms can work to teach contributors what is acceptable behavior. The thing I have noticed about the blocking tools from watching the ANI discussions that the guidelines for applying blocks are up for debate. The tools themselves are neutral, it is the users that can be either harsh or lenient, depending on the personalities of those users - like society in general. As to blocking a user with no warnings, based on my experiences in the real world punishing an individual without forewarning is a bad practice. It would require a truly, blatantly wrong act or serious infraction to jump right to a suspension of privileges. Again, this is based on dealing with subordinates in real world situations as a person in a supervisory position. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

6. You write a BLP article on "Michael Watkins". Six days later, when the article is on DYK, an IP user adds the sentence "In late 2009, Watkins was charged in connection to the 2008 murder of actress Theresa Hutchins, but the charges were later dropped", citing only a gossip mag. This is a pretty well-known fact, and you would have added it to the article when writing it had you been able to fine a reliable source to back it up. You revert the IP's addition under the BLP policy, but xe adds it back again. You revert again, and it is re-added again. You revert again, and the IP re-adds it again. A random admin notices and blocks both of you for edit warring. Who is correct? What do you do?

A: The admin who blocked us for edit waring. What I should have done was try to engage the IP contributor and explain the rules behind biographies of living persons instead of violating the three revert rules. I understand the rules and should not have allowed myself to be drawn into an edit war. I would then ask for a restoration of my editing privileges with a mae culpa. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 07:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional optional question from NuclearWarfare

7. Last time, I opposed in part because of this diff. What, if anything, has changed since then?

A: I have been making an effort to engage those who leave posts on my talk page instead of blowing them off. When someone posts a question or comment on a talk page it is common courtesy to respond to the queries and provide explanations regarding to my actions. I was not doing that when at the time of my first RfA, and was appropriately called on my lack of civility. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 08:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional optional question from Cube lurker

8. You express an interest to work WP:ANI discussions. Could you point out a couple of discussions you took part in that highlight your abilities in this area.

A: I have only been monitoring the page and not participating as a disinterested third party. I wanted to see how others handled the various situations that arose and how they responded in order to glean how admins react. The only time I have ever really participated was in incidents I filed or had a intimate knowledge of. I have participated in couple regarding now-banned, long-time-sock User:Codyfinke and couple regarding User:Badagnani, both a long time ago. The last I filed was in July regarding a refresh of the edit warring in the Korean cuisine article. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 08:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional optional question from Groomtech

9. Would you see it as part of the admin role to issue orders, for example, banning a user from a page or topic? If so, what process would you employ?

A: From what I have seen and read, and admin doesn't issue orders so much as help to enforce the consensus of the contributors and editors of Wikipedia. As to banning a user, each case would have to be looked at to see if a ban is truly needed. In deciding if a ban would be warranted, I would look to see if the user had a history of disruptive behavior, check to see if he had been warned appropriately about the behavior and work from that point. If need be, I would consult on AN or ANI for a second opinion if I was not confident a block was necessary. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 18:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Correction - I used the word "ban" in this response, I meant to say "block". I will sometimes confuse words when speaking or typing, and did so in this instance. Thanks to mild dyslexia, my spelling is also problematic, and while Firefox & Word spellcheckers are a great help, they cannot help when the brain will not or cannot choose the proper words to use. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 10:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Keepscases

10. Which of the "personal appeals" speaks to you the most? Why?

A: I am sorry, could you clarify the question a little? Do you mean what personal appeals in general or do you mean a specific set? --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 16:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The personal appeals that are currently displayed at the top of pages such as this one; they are worth reading if you haven't already. Keepscases (talk) 19:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional optional question from Richwales

11. How (if at all) do you feel your answer to #9 above might stand to be refined in light of Wikipedia:Banning policy#Decision to ban?

A: I understand that banning a user is a consensus based decision made by the community as a whole, based upon discussions on the various notice boards (or the various groups and individuals granted that power) while blocking a user is an admin level decision that is generally temporary in nature designed to prevent disruption or other problematic issues such as threats. If I believed that a ban was in order but before recommending a contributor for a ban, I would have to look at his/her behavior, the nature of their contributions and interactions with others. Do they make contributions on other areas that are not so disruptive, thus requiring a topic/page/article ban or is the behavior so out of tune with the accepted behavior that they need to be prevented from editing at all. Also, might the user appear to be willing and able to learn how contribute with the help of a mentor? These are factors I would consider before making my recommendation to the community. If I were called upon as a disinterested third party to enforce the decisions of the community, ArbCom or Foundation, I would do so within the guidelines laid out in the discussions and policies using the provided tools. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Mr R00t ^{Talk 'tribs}

12. When, if ever, do you feel that punitive blocks should be issued? What would be the length of the block?

A: Blocks should not be punitive in nature. Before I report someone to AIV, I look through the recent edit history of the contributor to see what his edit history looks like, the conditions the edits were made under, the relationship between the editor and others and compliance with the basic tenants of WP. The same would apply if I were the one issuing the blocks. A simple lapse of judgment of a contributor does not always necessitate a block but a simple warning, but if it did a simple short "time out" might be all that is needed to let them cool down and resume productive contributing. If there were a pattern of behavior that were indicative of a more serious disregard for accepted norms of behavior, a more lengthy period may be required to help curb the disruptive behavior and allow the editor to understand how his/her actions are disruptive. Basically, if and when a block is needed and the length of the block would be based on the intent of the contributor. Again, if I felt that the block may be problematic, I would request an opinion on the AN or ANI noticeboard. Also, these conditions are under the assumption that the person being blocked is not issuing personal or legal threats or other committing actions that threatens individuals or the Foundation. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 16:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from BE——Critical_{__Talk}

13. In question 6 you say you would would be wrong to edit war with an IP adding poorly sourced material to a BLP. Do you think the 3rr policy is wrong to give an exception for edit warring over such entries? If you don't object to this exception to the 3rr rule, and YOU were the admin who blocked someone for keeping poorly sourced material out of a BLP, would you unblock with an edit summary noting that you blocked in error? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 04:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A: 1. No I do not think the exception is wrong, when I answered the question I was thinking solely about edit waring and not the BLP exception. If I made an error, I would honestly admit to the mistake and apologize to the individual I had acted erroneously towards. Admitting a mistake is takes allot of courage, especially when it is one that harms another. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 12:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional optional question from Guoguo12

14. Would you open yourself to admin recall? Why or why not?

A: Yes, being granted admin status is a privilege that is not a lifetime right. If the community felt that there was a valid, good faith reason for a discussion about my actions, I would accept the recall discussion. I would participate in the discussion and I would accept the results of said discussion regardless of the outcome. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• 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 his contributions before commenting.

Comment - Ktr101 has fixed a !vote made by a blocked user. As User:Peter Karlsen's comment may have influenced how other !voters !voted, I suggest this RfA be either declared invalid, or that the closing bureaucrat takes this possibility into consideration.--Kudpung (talk) 03:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see no evidence that it affected later !votes. One person refers to it amongst other reasons, others mention BLP problems independently, most mention it not at all. I'd suggest leaving it to the closer to decide on that. Incidentally, a quick search didn't reveal the reason for the block, but unless it was RfA/this RfA/Karlsen-related, it's debateable whether the !vote should have even been indented. -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternate account of Phantomsteve]} 04:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Edit stats on talk. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Support Seems fine to me. I very impressed with the low number of automated edits. Inka⁸⁸⁸ 23:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support - Don't see why not. Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support I don't see why he shouldn't be a sysop. WAYNESLAM 00:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Strong support - lots of good contributions. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support – I can't see any of the problems raised in his last RfA in his recent edit history. Seems more than capable. I wish you all the best; good luck. — Fly by Night (talk) 00:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. Strong Support - Great edits, and an active user for quite a while. Krashlandon 01:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support Seems like he has all the wanted qualities of an administrator. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC) Move to oppose. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

8. Seems like a fantastic candidate. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 02:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support - No reservation whatsoever in supporting. Jerem reviewed and passed one of my GA and I was impressed with his active help, suggestions, and polite approach to the task. I'm also impressed by his diversity of interventions across the board. --Kudpung (talk) 03:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support No red flags here :)--White Shadows ^{Those Christmas lights} 03:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support - He is a active and constructive editor in the WPFOODS and has given me good advice for many things. Shows that he has very good understanding of WP policies. A very good candidate indeed to help with general backlog stuff and general mop duties. --Visik (talk) 07:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
12. I appreciate Cirt's concerns, but the edit in question is incredibly minor - simply adding a word. In regards to this I can see Jerem43's point, in a way; two requests within a minute of each other followed by "very good, now here's how to talk" would hack me off as well. I don't see it as "his only response is to blank his talkpage", given that he was initially engaged and, following Cirt's comments on his talkpage, opened up discussion again and reengaged with those editors who had a problem. His edit there cannot, in full, be summarised as brusque or sarcastic, but simply the standard response of somebody being rebuffed. Yes, he did make other edits, which seem fairly reasonable. WP:BRD exists for a reason; to promote the idea that nothing is irreversible, and if you want to make a reasonable change, do it - anyone with a problem can then revert, and discuss. This process was followed, with Jerem43 engaged in it. The idea that somebody should be opposed on the grounds that they WP:BOLDly went where no man has gone before would have a chilling effect on the acceptable actions of contributors, even when it's within policy, should said contributors ever want to become admins. I doubt this is something any of us want to see. I cannot see a valid reason why Jerem43 should not become an admin, excepting this wholly understandable blip. For that reason I Strongly Support. Ironholds (talk) 09:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support Supported for Admin in the past. Positive benefit to the project, has matured well in the past year. Plus one again. Ottawa4ever (talk) 10:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support Has been around since 2006 and has over 38000 edits and has overcame the issues raised at the last RFA.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support A Wikipedian since 2006 with a consistent editing record, the candidate has shown improvements and maturity since last RfA.--Hokeman (talk) 14:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. I've had a good look at the previous RfA and at the nominee's recent work, and I see a great deal of improvement since that RfA - we clearly have someone here who has listened to what people were saying and has acted appropriately. I don't see that Portal:Bacon thing as a big deal really - more just an example of WP:BRD that ended up staying reverted. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Going to have to shift to neutral over concerns about answers to later questions. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

16. Support Don't see why I should oppose, fine job. Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 20:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support. Good edits in relevant areas, seems to have experience and appears trustworthy. The Bacon thing looks to me like a small incident that was at worst misguided and can possibly be justified under WP:BOLD. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
18. Yep, happy with. Jeremy has been known to be forceful, but that is not a negative quality. I've found him to be communicative (beyond the call of duty on occasion), clueful and generally mindful of the opinions of others, and haven't seen anything which would give me significant pause after a rather long-term overlap in editing on fast food articles. The cluebat is always available if there are any problems mop-wise, but I can't see anything which should prevent that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 02:08, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support - No concerns here. ~NerdyScienceDude 15:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
20. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
21. Strong support but willing to change to strong support once the candidate answers their optional questions. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 17:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support as the opposes (valid as they are) do not concern me. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support - I to am impressed with the low automated count. (and a Twinkle fan) I think Jerem43 is a good candidate and can be with the tools. Mlpearc powwow 19:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support - Whilst Jarem43 has made a substantial contribution to not only WikiProject Food and Drink but many other areas; I am primarily in support as Jarem43 has shown experience, and exercised both opinion and good judgement in discussions responsibly since the last RfA, and I have come across no significant recent activities which suggest Jarem43 would not be appropriate as an admin. Aeonx (talk) 20:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support — Seems to be competent and reasonable. I'm satisfied with his answers (including answers to the additional questions). While respecting people's right to hold different opinions, I agree with Ironholds' position (see above). Richwales (talk · contribs) 15:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
26. Whopper support (warning: image NSFW). I was waiting for the answers to questions 6 and 8 and they look good. I particularly liked q8 because I would be sceptical of a non-admin hanging around ANI and AN too much - observing from a distance before actively engaging oneself is a very good approach. --Mkativerata (talk) 16:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    q6 is a problem actually, but because I missed it at 2am (and am rather embarrassed for that) I can't excactly oppose over it. FWIW I think Peter Karlsen's explanation of why it is a problem is correct. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

27. Support Answers look good and I am not seeing any concerns. →GƒoleyFour (GSV) 17:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support No major concerns, looks fine. I agree with Ironholds, it is normal for users to make problematic edits once in a while, so Cirt's concerns are not enough to drag me to oppose. — Waterfox ^~talk~ 17:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
29. Weak support I do have some concerns (in the same vein as Cirt; I remember seeing a rather brusque and unhelpful edit by Jerem43 months ago but for the life of me I can't remember where it was). However, bearing in mind the volume of edits and the diversity of contributions I think that, overall, Jerem43 can be trusted with the tools and would make a lot of positive change with them. bobrayner (talk) 18:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support Opposes are personal opinions, that whilst valid are not enough to withhold my personal support. Not likely to break the place with the tools. net positive. Pedro :  Chat  22:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    For the record, any RFA !vote is a personal opinion. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

31. Support this guy seems good. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support no reason not to. --rogerd (talk) 01:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
33. He could have answered question 6 more wrong (like that wasn't a BLP violation for example), just because he was a little off doesn't indicate instant oppose. Secret ^account 04:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support- sure, why not? Reyk _YO! 06:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support Very productive editor, good technical skills. Occasional (very occasional..) lapses in the highest standards of civility and communication are not sufficient reason for me to oppose. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support' yes of course. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 13:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support. Knows his way around content creation and user interaction, no major issues with the answers. Fences&Windows 22:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
38. Weak support There are some red flags, but I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt, cross my fingers, and hope you don't wreck the place. AniMate 04:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support Seems like someone who knows what he's doing and is more than willing to learn on the job, which is important. No serious concerns. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support. I am disappointed to see that Jerem43 was tripped up by Fetchcomms' trick question (question 6). However Jerem43 has many good contributions and appropriate interactions with other editors. I think that it is unlikely that will misuse the tools. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    How was it a "trick question"? It looks to me like a perfectly legitimate question designed to test the candidate's understanding of policy. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It was a trick question, because it already presupposes that existing admins are not perfect, but expects perfection from the candidates. --Kudpung (talk) 12:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    How exactly does it "expect perfection from the candidates"? Rd232 ^talk 15:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    In that it used a disingenuous construct which precipitated the pile-on reaction to the candidate's answer among !voters who have shown zero tolerance. The candidate is simply not well enough known to attract sufficient support to cancel it out. Whether Fetchcomms intended that to happen, I don't know. I prefer to believe it's not what he expected, but it's too late now.Kudpung (talk) 02:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    " disingenuous construct"? The question is very very clearly about the intersection of BLP and 3RR. Just about any answer that mentions the BLP exemption to 3RR, whatever it says about applicability, will be OK. Just about any answer which doesn't mention it simply fails. Rd232 ^talk 12:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

41. Support I wrote a gentle but strong oppose in the last RfA, but I believe he has soothed all of my concerns. Others disagree but few seem to suggest situations in which the candidate might actually cause problems; they merely seem to feel he could be better if he waited for a 3rd RfA. Sure, he could, but how many third RfA's succeed? Let's give him a chance. —Soap— 19:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support Has the background, skills and knowledge to be an effective administrator. Still has areas of admin responsibility that would need to be learned, but the areas in which the editor plans to focus on at first are appropriate. Alansohn (talk) 23:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
43. Per Soap... Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 03:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support Good grasp of policy, and even if Cirt has a point I don't see that it means he shouldn't be sysop. He may need better communication skills but as long as his intentions are good all such should work out. Being an admin isn't being a god. He's a good hardworking editor and personally I think minor deviations from perfection should not be eliminated from WP. If they are we will simply ensure that our administrator corps is composed of a bunch of old nags. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 03:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support Like the responses to q 4 and 5. Will probably make a few mistakes, but then who doesn't. All in all I think he'll/she'll be a reasonable admin. --RegentsPark (talk) 03:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support Ultimately Jerem43 has earned my trust. This based on his contributions to Wikipedia, and his participation in this RfA. While I respect many of the opposing views, I can not adopt the concerns as my own. I do not see the down side. My76Strat 05:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support I have to disagree with the opposes that are coming because of Q6. I'd actually agree with the admin for blocking both parties for the edit warring, as the IP could argue that the gossip mag, is in fact, reliable– the user is well within rights to revert the IP because of the BLP policy, but should also reach out to the IP user and discuss the changes that the IP user has made. The administrator would notice that it was a wheel war, and rightly blocked both parties, while locking down the page on the version without the BLP problems-- I think this question was badly worded and is a prime example of damned if you do, damned if you don't. It would be a shame if Jeremy didn't get sysoped because of this-- he has my full support. Nomader ^(Talk) 09:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support, definite net positive and clearly a competent and dedicated editor. While I can see the concerns raised by opposers over Q6, I personally feel the question as asked is sufficiently flawed that I wouldn't blame anyone for answering it badly. Overall I'm happy with what I've seen from Jerem43 and I think he'd make sensible use of the admin tools even if he does need to brush up on a few policy areas. ~ mazca ^talk 11:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support IMO the positive contributions outweigh the concerns raised. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 14:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
50. opposers raise valid concerns, but I think that the user will be a net positive with the admin tools. -Atmoz (talk) 18:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Support of course. Active, experienced editor. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 15:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Indenting !vote. You already !voted support above ;) -FASTILY ^(TALK) 17:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

51. Support I thought that the project would benefit from this user having a few extra buttons when I nominated him the first time, and I still think so today. youngamerican (wtf?) 16:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support Good luck in the future. ∙:∙:.:pepper:.:∙:∙ 00:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support If the question is 'why not?' then I'm still waiting on an answer. Swarm ^X 01:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose. Disruptive behavior at Portal:Bacon, domineering edit style attempting to push POV from "food" portals into this particular portal - with unilateral actions. Subtle edit summary of "tweak" formatting was actually quite drastic, adding ugly large text to the top of the page [1]. When communication was attempted with the user in question - he chose instead to blank out two subsections from his talk page, rather than respond to the concerns raised [2]. User tagged a major important template for Portal:Bacon with deletion, without any prior discussion whatsoever [3], and then proceeded to modify multiple pages on the portal - again, with zero prior attempts at discussion [4] [5] [6] [7]. When two users disagreed with the changes, user responds with sarcasm, "Sorry for trying to help." User's responses were less than helpful, discussion style and tone seemed to be abrupt, brusque, and less than professional. -- Cirt (talk) 04:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   See my comments in the support section. Ironholds (talk) 09:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   While this was recent, it was one incident, which you happened to be involved in. Is that enough to warrant an oppose vote? Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 20:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Goes to a pattern by the user in question. See Oppose by Malinaccier (talk · contribs), directly below. -- Cirt (talk) 23:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Two caustic events 16 months apart is not a pattern, it is inevitable - it is also worthy of respect. I know few users who could go that long between problematic edits. Ironholds (talk) 07:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose. I came to this RfA hoping to support. I specifically remember your last RfA because I thought that you were a really good editor that just needed work with thoroughness and communication/interaction skills. 15 months is certainly a long time since then and is long enough to change or correct, but I do not think that this has happened. Cirt's diffs show the same type of demeanor that I opposed for last time. Malinaccier (talk) 21:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I just wanted to say that my response was not intended to be sarcastic in nature, the comment was meant as a true apology and not a dismissal of him or his opinion. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3. Weak oppose—this doesn't look like the sort of behaviour expected of administrators. ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 18:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Oppose - answer to question 6 suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of the BLP policy, which allows an exception to WP:EW for the removal of badly sourced "contentious" material about living people in extreme and obvious cases (derogatory content from a a gossip magazine surely qualifies), and the use of administrative tools, including blocking and page protection, to force it out of articles, even when the "involved administrator" rule would otherwise preclude action. The candidate's response suggests not only an unwillingness to use the tools available to him to ensure that blatantly defamatory material stays out of articles, but also a treatment of such obvious BLP violations as simple content disputes, to be acted upon by administrators no differently than an edit war over whether "color/colour" should be written in the American or British spelling, in which both parties might expect to be blocked. Peter Karlsen (talk) 18:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   And if the candidate is willing to treat straightforward, obvious enforcement of the BLP policy's source requirements as an edit war in direct contravention of the policy's text, what hope is there for a prudent response to requests for administrative action in more ambiguous cases? If several single purpose accounts add a crackpot physics theory to an article, using only some professor's blog as a source (where the article is on a general physics topic, not the professor), and several respected editors remove the problematic material, a naive reading of WP:EW does actually suggest that all of the involved users are equally culpable, and all could be blocked for "edit warring." Yet this is the classic situation in which administrators need to be sensitive to policies such as WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR, instead of robotically handing out blocks, a case in which the "administrators don't take sides in content disputes" principle is stretched to its breaking point. Peter Karlsen (talk) 19:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Keep in mind that it might not always be clear to an uninvolved observer whether the BLP exemption for reverting unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material applies in a specific situation. See WP:GRAPEVINE. Richwales (talk · contribs) 21:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   There are certainly borderline cases, in which editors removing what they believe to constitute violations of the BLP source requirements will sometimes be granted the benefit of the exception, but it shouldn't be relied upon. However, I'm sure we've all seen supermarket tabloids whose content is salacious and mostly fictional claims about celebrities; removing information about purported criminal charges brought against a living person, supported only by one of these gossip magazines, seems to be plainly within the remit of the exception. But the biggest problem with the response to the question is that it doesn't discuss the exception at all, even to disaffirm its application to a situation where it obviously seems relevant. The answer shows a clear lack of familiarity with the BLP policy. Peter Karlsen (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Note that the above user has been blocked. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4. Oppose. Don't want to put off a good contributor, so please remember adminship is not some kind of Great Editor Award, and so declining to support is not saying you're not a great editor. I'm opposing because of "I would be able to better serve its contributors by being a definitive person that they can come to for assistant with their efforts to improve the Encyclopedia." This suggests to me a fundamental misunderstanding of the meaning and importance of WP:INVOLVED; there are well-established procedures for every kind of admin intervention and contributors shouldn't generally approach you directly for intervention (advice is different). Also, not spelling correctly in an RFA self-nomination is just slightly suggestive of a lack of requisite attention to detail. Finally, as Peter Karlsen noted, being seemingly blissfully ignorant of the BLP exemption to 3RR is not a good thing for someone self-nominating for their second RFA; you'd expect them to have prepared adequately by brushing up on major policies, or at least refer to them carefully in answering questions. Rd232 ^talk 19:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. Per the answers to my questions (Q5 and Q6). An admin may actually block a user who has not been warned for many reasons, such as: socks of banned users, persistent vandals, or other LTA users; vandalbots or unapproved bots; users making death threats or outing other users; open proxies, obviously compromised accounts or accounts of confirmed-to-be-deceased users; and grossly inappropriate usernames ("User:Block me please, I'm a vandal!" or "User:Go fuck yourself, wikibitches"). And 3RR does not apply to BLP violations, which my example clearly was. Of course, the blocking admin was probably acting with the intent of stopping the disruption, but that doesn't make his actions right, and you should have every right to enforce the BLP policy. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   You are seriously opposing someone for answering a damned if they do, damned if they don't question (Q6)??

   Q You're an admin and you've just being blocked for replacing the main page with the word CUNT. Someone overrules your most recent speedy deletion on the grounds of a compromised account. What do you do next? Pedro :  Chat  22:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm not sure what you mean in regards to my question—I would have expected "the blocking admin should have looked closer to see what was happening, and clear BLP violations can be reverted past 3RR" or something like that, so I honestly don't know what the do/don't is referring to (answering it?). It's a situation that has happened several times before, at least. In response your question, I don't know what you're looking for, but if I was blocked, I don't think I'd care much about the speedy (by overrule, do you mean undelete? If so, and the article was "go fuck yourself" and I had deleted it under G3, any admin undeleting that is ... well, whatever.) and I'd just walk away. I mean, if I decided to put CUNT on the MP, that would mean for me that I'm done with the project. (I'm assuming you meant that I intentionally did that, and my account was not actually compromised.) /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Where did that come from Pedro? Q6 isn't "damned if you do, damned if you don't", the question is about the intersection of BLP and 3RR, and any answer that shows no awareness of the existence of the BLP exemption to 3RR fails. Rd232 ^talk 00:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Well clerarly I read this differently, but strikes me Fethcomms is asking wether the candidate is still beating his wife. Ignoring the BLP bit the main thrust of the end of the question is "You've broken 3RR" - so the question specifically creates a situation wheer the candidate has erred. The simple reply would be "I wouldn't have broken 3RR in the first place".Pedro :  Chat  07:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Well, OK, but 3RR is a rule that you shouldn't exceed 3 reverts. Explicit policy exemptions to it allow people to break it. Anyway, the reply should have discussed it, whatever the candidate thought. Rd232 ^talk 08:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

6. Oppose per Q8. Many situations at ANI are dealt with via discussions. Often when tool use is needed it's after consensus. If you intend to work ANI I'd like to see you participate in discussions so I can get a feel for how you'd deal with situations there once given tools.--Cube lurker (talk) 23:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. Questionable knowledge about BLP. In regards to Q7, "I have been making an effort to engage those who leave posts on my talk page instead of blowing them off" is at odds with your response to Cirt. —Dark 03:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8. Oppose. I don't like the answer to Q5, it seems to miss the point. I would like to have heard a view on whether four warnings is too many or too few and whether or not we should be tougher on vandals. Also Q6, of course. To get a question wrong is one thing, but that was an open book test. If you can't take the time to look up WP:EW to double check in your RfA, what's to say you would when you're about to block someone in similar circumstances? Sorry. Fifteen months is a long time, but it takes more than waiting patiently to be an admin. If I were you, I would think long and hard about whether I wanted to be an admin. If the answer is still yes, then I would spend another 3 months at least gaining more experience in the areas I wanted to work in (interesting that someone who wants to work at AIV hasn't been granted rollback, but that's not an indicator of anything in and of itself). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
9. Oppose. Concerns with policy knowledge and experience in areas candidate wishes to work. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
10. Oppose Clearly needs more experience with BLP, an essential part of adminship. A good way to get it is first careful obsersvation, at the various discussions of WT:BLP and WP:ANI, nd then suggest some active participation there. DGG ( talk ) 05:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    +WP:BLPN. Rd232 ^talk 08:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

11. Oppose The candidate's editing history raises questions for me about temperament and civility. My opinion only based on issues raised by commenters above. --Quartermaster (talk) 14:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    In that case you may want to look at my support vote. Ironholds (talk) 17:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

12. Oppose. To me, Q6 was a particularly easy "technical" question that the candidate should have gotten right. Sometimes the questions on RfA do seem to be extremely tricky and subtle; this one pointed to a clear policy that I would expect all Admins to know before gaining access to the block button. As has been pointed out many times, in many places WP:BLP really matters, in a way that many of our other policies don't (in a real world sense). Candidates don't need to nail ever question, but they do need to get core policy at least close to right. I'm also unclear exactly what the candidate plans to do as admin. As an experienced user xe can already be a source of guidance and info; and anyone can join in the discussion on WP:ANI. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
13. Oppose: Some people should never be Admins. This is not meant as a put down, as I also fall into that category. However you are a gifted editor. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ans 9, 6, 5. Shifting to support, per Soap. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 02:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

14. Oppose Q6 is bad enough by itself. Jclemens (talk) 08:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
15. Oppose - While I agree with Ironholds, and don't oppose on the points he's addressing, the Q5 and Q6 answers are problematic. Shadowjams (talk) 10:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
16. Oppose Unfortunately there are numerous indications that this user is unclear about various areas of policies and procedures. Also, several of the answers to questions are too general, and avoid really indicating what the candidate's views are, in some cases leaving me wondering if they have any views. For example, the response to question 5 doesn't answer "When should you block a user who was received no warnings?" Yes, it says that "It would require a truly, blatantly wrong act or serious infraction", but it gives absolutely no indication whatsoever what the candidate thinks would be such a "truly, blatantly wrong act or serious infraction". Presumably we all know that it would have to be something serious, but to me the question is asking for an indication of specifically what would be serious enough, and the candidate makes no attempt at all to tell us. The answer to question 4 suggests a readiness to unblock by default "unless there was a distinct pattern of vandalism in the history". I would certainly want to ask the user requesting the unblock for further information than just "I will be good in future". Also, while "If the address were a shared address from a school" then the candidate is right to "encourage him/her to create an account", but wrong to think that one should, in general, also unblock for the whole school. I am also not sure about unblocking "unless there was a distinct pattern of vandalism in the history". If there was no pattern of vandalism then why was the IP blocked in the first place? The answer to question 9 suggests a lack of clarity as to the distinction between a ban and a block. Yes, I accept that it is possible to make a slip and use the wrong word, but (1) the question asked about banning, and to say "oh, I was answering the question as though it meant blocking, and only wrote 'ban' by a slip" is really not good enough. Also, "ban" appears three times in the answer, which seems unlikely unless the candidate is not really all that clear about the difference. An admin should be 100% clear about those two being different concepts. The candidate indicates an interest in playing an administrative role in ANI, but admits to having taken very little part there hitherto. Watching and not taking part is helpful, but does not provide any evidence as to how the candidate would perform there. Likewise the candidate indicates an interest in playing an administrative role in AIV, but I can find very little vandalism-related work in the candidate's edit history. My experience of working at AIV indicates that even among experienced Wikipedians there are many who have quite mistaken ideas about how AIV is to be used, and it is essential that every admin who works there has a thorough grasp of procedure. Those are just a few samples of my concerns, and unfortunately there are many others, several of which have already been discussed above by others. (e.g. the answer to Question 6, and doubts about the candidate's temperament.) Some of the concerns are fairly minor, but there are just too many of them. My overall feeling is that the candidate is rather vague about the whole question of what being an administrator involves. It's a pity, because we are dealing with an editor with many strong points, but unfortunately some weaknesses in areas which are of great importance to admin work. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
17. Oppose While it is true that Q6 contained a pitfall it is one that an admin should not fall into. It may be that this candidate's answer was arrived at too hurriedly, but whether this is the case or not he clearly failed adequately to consider the relationships between WP:EW and WP:BLP. And, as a seperate concern, the failure to differentiate between a ban and a block (Q9) is worrying, whatever the reason for it. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 13:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I can and do differentiate between the two and understand the difference. As I stated in the correction, when I type, and sometimes speak, I will confuse or even forget words. This is not deliberate and sometimes I do not even realize I have done so until after the fact or when another person points it out. This is what happened here. This issue is compounded when stressed, excited and other intense emotions or when I have to concentrate.

    This is caused by the perfect storm of mild dyslexia, adult ADHD and another neurological disorder that causes migraines and seizures. While I have got a good hand on these and can usually avoid things that trigger the effects and the migraines have lessened in occurrence as I get older, I am unable to avoid every situation in life that is effected by them. As I said in the last paragraph, there are times I will be overwhelmed and loose that control over the effects. In the real world, my wife and I cannot watch comedy films or TV shows together because I become so fidgety and antsy that I cannot sit still - no matter how hard I try to suppress the urge to stay seated.

    When editing extensively and concentrating on the actual content I am typing, I will often have to reread the passage several times to ensure that I have actually typed words on the screen in the proper order that appears in my head. It is hard to explain the disconnect between what I envision in my head and what I type or say, and is often an annoyance to myself at a minimum and a source of deep frustration when others confuse this disorder for incompetence or lack of thoroughness at worst. When editing on Wikipedia, composing letters or emails or other tasks that requires me to think I will have to repeatedly go through a passage to ensure that I have not abruptly ended a sentence in mid thought, duplicated the same passage several times in a row, add involuntary spaces where they do not go or misspell common words that I know how to spell, but just cannot for one reason or another. I also have to make sure that my point has been properly spelled out to ensure that it is not misinterpreted incorrectly by others as rudeness or some other ant-social behavior. My answer to number 9 is a one example, I got the word ban in my head and could not shake it, even when I proof read the passage I read and saw the word block even though it clearly said ban.

    I just wanted to try to explain this to let you know that this is not me being unprepared or lacking in knowledge of our policies, but to explain these personal issues that I have and how they affect my interaction with others. I have been able to overcome these issues in my real world job, despite my supervisors' initial misgivings, and obtain a position of trust in my company. I hope to show others here that I can do so here, given the chance. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 18:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

18. This editor often labels good-faith edits as vandalism in edit summaries when reverting. Some examples here: [8], [9], [10], [11]. The edit summaries link to WP:VAND, in the first sentence of which the editor is accused of a "deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." I really want sysops, especially those who deal with vandalism, to be able to make the distinction between misguided good-faith edits and real vandalism; the appropriate response is radically different. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
19. Q5 and Q6 are not good. Also in Q1 he states he will be at WP:AIV, but he is hardly what one could call a vandal fighter. There is a small amount of Twinkle edits, but it might be better to spend some time with Huggle to see what vandals really get up to - after all a good proportion of an admin is dealing with vandals - WP:AIV shows the worse ones, but there are plenty of real smart alecs, with much more subtle vandalism who stop at 4 warnings (and then change IP...).  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Huggle is a 3rd party application. So is AWB. neither of them work on some extremely popular computer platforms, and editors cannot be expected to use them as a condition of being or becoming an Admin.Kudpung (talk) 02:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    If that is the case there is always WP:VF and Twinkle, though not so easy. That was only part of the oppose though. Also there is WP:IGLOO  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think any of those work on Internet Explorer.... Jenks24 (talk) 16:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    They work on Firefox - Kudpung pointed out that Huggle is platform dependant - i.e it needs Windoze, and some machines (e.g. Mac or Linux) therefore can't run it. Igloo is platform independent and runs inside a browser, Firefox is available for other non-windows machines, so there is no problem in not having the correct hardware to run the system.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

20. Oppose - Trick question or not, Q6 throws me. Cirt also raises a concern, and I can't say yes to this Rfa despite some names I highly respect over on the support side. I'm additionally aware that this !vote comes when the percentage is at 68%, giving it a bit more impact than usual. Assuming this Rfa fails, could I suggest, Jerem43, that you try an Rfa again much sooner in time than the last one, perhaps next spring? It is clear you are a net asset to the project, and this Rfa shows you are close, but in my view not quite ready. Best wishes in any case. Jusdafax 01:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
21. Oppose. It seems the candidate has a serious temper problem. In his answer to Q7, he claims to address his poor communication skills, and yet still does the exact same thing two months ago. And if removing valid comments on one's Talk page wasn't bad enough, using a revert tool to do that shows a dangerous tendency to abuse tools. Same goes for the delete button; I'd be hesitant to give such a tool to someone who is too CSD-happy. And yes, I have read Ironholds' comments, and find it hard to believe the few examples listed here are the candidate's only slip-ups. Owen× ☎ 10:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
22. Slight Oppose I think there is much to like about Jeremy. I think he has the best interests of Wikipedia at heart. And I'm not too concerned about people making small mistakes, as long as they learn from them. I think perhaps a little too much is being made of the answers to the questions. The course of action he says he would take in answer to Q6 is not disruptive, though - yes - Jeremy should have had the sense to look at the actual policy that was linked to in the question, but that is part of a learning curve. However, if we add the little mistakes in this RfA to the observations that people have made that Jeremy can sometimes lose his cool or be a bit stubborn/obstructive, I think it would be better for Jeremy to take on board what has been said, and try again in 6 months. And in the meantime work in some areas, such as Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and/or Wikipedia:Editor assistance or dealing with Wikipedia:Backlog. The community in general favours a person who nominates themselves for adminship when they can demonstrate that they have already done a fair bit of maintenance and admin type work, and who have demonstrated that they have already been serving "contributors by being a definitive person that they can come to for assistant with their efforts to improve the Encyclopedia". SilkTork *^YES! 16:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
23. Oppose per Cirt. Sorry but I am not comfortable at this time entrusting the extra buttons to someone who responds this way, to a reasonable and polite note from a respected member, merely weeks ago. 18:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
24. Oppose. Anyone who believes that the current warning/blocking system works well (answer to Q5) needs to get out more, and certainly ought not to have their own blocking tool. The answer to Q6 of course just beggars belief. Malleus Fatuorum 22:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
25. Oppose I'm sorry, but the unsigned oppose by User:Shawn in Montreal is really concerning. Reverting this kind of comment with ... please don't tell me how to have a conversation.. is a poor response, unacceptable for any good editor. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 22:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
26. Oppose Per Q5 and Q6. Also it is ironic how your talk page is telling others to polite when you aren't.--iGeMiNix 22:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
27. Oppose I've been thinking about this for a couple of days, but I can't get past the answer to Q6. Politeness can be taught, and I don't particularly care about his opinion of the current blocking system, but he can't 'explain the rules' if he doesn't get them himself. - KrakatoaKatie 01:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
28. Oppose, mainly per answers to Q5 and Q6, but also per Cirt. —mc10 (u|t|c) 02:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
29. Oppose Q6. It was a whiff on an open-book exam. Admins need to know the book well enough to use it "in the field", not botch easy questions when they have all the time in the world to look it up. And this isn't some esoteric trivia... the exemptions to 3RR are things you will use, and use often if given a mop. (Yes, you also have to learn when "the book"is wrong. That only comes with experience, though.) Courcelles 07:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
30. Oppose. Concerned with answers to Q5-6. Additionally, editor has established a pattern of poor impulse control in responding to others in a belittling and dismissive manner, as evidenced on his talk page and through various edit summaries. This is unwelcome behavior, inappropriate not only for admins, but for all editors throughout the project. Cindamuse (talk) 09:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
31. Oppose. Critical civility concerns, as well as concerns with the responses to questions five and six. One two three... 10:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
32. Oppose Civility concerns, and Pedro's new temper tantrum does nothing to sway that. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 21:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral changing to Support — Seems like a conscientious editor who could be trusted with the admin tools and would make good use of them, but I want to see him answer the additional questions before I decide whether to support this RfA or not. Richwales (talk · contribs) 04:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)Richwales (talk · contribs) 15:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC) Richwales (talk · contribs) 16:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Neutral veering towards opposesupport Cirt's comments cause me concern. I will look into the candidate's editing and communication in more detail in a couple of days when I'm not at work, and change to either oppose or support -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternate account of Phantomsteve]} 05:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC) update having seen Ironhold's comments above, I'm more inclined towards support, but will look into this in more detail in a couple of days when I'm off from work and have the time to do it properly -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternate account of Phantomsteve]} 18:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Neutral I need to see some more answers to questions before I can make a support/oppose decision. Joe Random Contact Me 16:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC) Moving to support. →GƒoleyFour (GSV) 17:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2. Neutral Why not? —WFC— 14:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Wat. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   What do you mean "Why not"? Inka⁸⁸⁸ 04:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Would you be asking if I was in the support column? —WFC— 05:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   In the support column it means "why shouldn't this person be an admin? I can't see any reason why not." What does it mean here? Rd232 ^talk 12:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I would suggest it could be interpreted as "I have made my intention to vote clear, and await answers to questions/the persuasion of supporters/opposers to tell me which way to go". So in other words "Why not?" means "Why not neutral? Come on, show me something which raises my eyebrows". Ironholds (talk) 12:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I hope you're not planning on ever running for adminship, WFC. This is 'oppose' worthy disruption. Swarm ^X 01:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3. Neutral. My comments in my original Support still count and I still see some very positive attributes, but concerns voiced by a number of people over the answers to the later questions have pretty much neutralized my opinion. I would be very likely to support a future run. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Neutral - I see many good qualities here with respect to content, but some of the issues raised about policy knowledge worry me. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 14:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. Neutral. Serious concerns raised by those in the oppose section, but still a number of positive attributes. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:17, 7 December 2010 (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.