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

Final (78/7/1); ended 18:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC) - Dweller (talk) 18:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Decker (talk · contribs) – I'm delighted to be able to nominate Joe Decker for adminship. Joe has been here since 2005, though much of his 6,000 edits have been in the last few months. I encountered Joe during the uBLP cleanup drive, where he has been doing a huge amount of referencing of unreferenced BLPs that other editors have created, along with some sensible AFD nominations. Joe's four year tenure, clean block log and history of uncontroversial useful editing all leads me to believe that he will make a useful and uncontentious admin. Please give him your support. ϢereSpielChequers 10:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept.

One quick disclaimer: the nature of my job means that a couple times a year I'll be away-from-keyboard for up to three weeks at a time. I don't believe that's a big deal, but I wanted to be clear about it. --j⚛e decker^talk 14:31, 22 July 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: Were I handed a mop, I'd start by lending a hand with AfD closes, which is the task closest to the work I've been doing --sourcing and where necessary deleting articles from the "well-aged" end of the unsourced BLP backlog. Perhaps I could lend a hand closing expired BLPPRODs as well.

While I hope to grow over time into helping in other administrative areas, I'd expect those to naturally grow out of what I'm already doing, and since unsourced BLPs seem to be my focus for a while, I'd guess that you wouldn't see me move into new areas for some time, and even then, I'd imagine they'd be related (page protection seems one possibility, perhaps later RevDel.)

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

A: It's hard to say the best, but I'm proudest of my role in the BLP sourcing push of the last few months. While much of the discussion of unsourced BLPs has focused on libel (and I have found a couple of attack pages in the backlog), I've also handled a few self-promotional ads, a dozen or so cut-and-paste copyright violations, and at least one repetitive hoax (now salted). More importantly, the great majority (a greater percentage than I would have thought three months ago) are sourcable. Adding sources to these articles gives our readers more and higher-quality information and thus makes Wikipedia a stronger resource. I enjoy working with the BLP Rescue Squad, too.

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. Conflicts happen, and a few have caused me stress, the vast majority don't. The times I've felt stress have been in content areas relating to LGBT rights and what I have at times felt was POV-pushing, a feeling which is in tension with AGF. E.g., working to improve and keep California Proposition 8 (2008) neutral and balanced. My toolbox of strategies for dealing with this involve deep breathing, walking, focusing on AGF, and walking away. I believe these are largely the right techniques, and I expect to continue to use those same techniques going forward.

Additional optional questions from RP459

4. I noticed from your editing history that you have edited sporadically over the past 5 years with several "blips" of significant editing along the way prior to March of 2010. Apart from the unsourced BLPs that you have been working on what has brought you back to Wikipedia after "breaks" or times of little editing?

A: The short answer is that what "brings me back" is a belief that Wikipedia is valuable and feeling like I have an area in which I can constructively add to it. But perhaps I should say more:

My edit count curve is lumpy, and I'm happy to give you a better sense of why. A couple different things are going on there. First, there's my work--I did a career change in early 2003 and have been self-employed since, my relative absence during the my few years was part having no time, in part not having done enough here to really feel "at ease" with doing much.

But I think another important factor has been "involvement", the first lump was a combination of free time and finding the uncategorization categorization of uncategorized articles effort going on the time, which seemed to have a quick learning curve. The second probably came about in part because of my interest in starting and helping out with articles such as Strauss v. Horton, I was interested in the subject matter and working on articles gave me a way of learning about it and sharing what I'd learned. Finally, I think what's made the last year or so interesting for me is a greater feeling that I'm a part of the Wikipedia community. --j⚛e decker^talk 03:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional (optional) question from Toddst1:

5. If you came across a statement of intent to commit violence - either self-directed or against or other(s) would you contact law enforcement? Why or why not and if yes, under what circumstances?

A: First, let me acknowledge that this is the sort of question that probably deserves a 10-page essay, not a couple-paragraph response. So, if you have qualms about what I say here, let's engage and talk about where we have differences, those may reflect different guesses about what a "typical" situation entails.

In the context of Wikipedia, however, with or without a mop, when looking at a even marginally credible threat of violence ... usually I'm not going to be in the best position to provide useful information to authorities directly. For example, it is unlikely that I will have personally real-world identification on the potential attacker or the potential victim. It is certain that I will not have a good knowledge of any history of previous incidents, it is certain that I lack the experience and knowledge to effectively, say, turn an IP address into a personal ID, or to determine if an account had gotten hijacked. I don't mean to suggest that this relieves me of any ethical duty to react, merely to suggest that, in my experience, the most effective action typically involves getting such threats to the people who can most effectively react to them quickly, and having them contact authorities.

There are ways in which some direct action are is appropriate. Just to pick one example, again from experience, a threat plus an incitement to violence against someone with personally id'ing information? I'd rollback the change, and within my priv bits and skills hide the revision from public view without losing the data entirely, if I wasn't 100% sure I could do that right I'd enlist a hand. Urgent, life-threatening situations are *not* the place to be trying out new skills, save as a last resort. Ditto blocking the user making an external threat, and ditto page-protecting the pages where the threats are being made. Both are things, again, I'd ask for assistance with if they occured today, if I had any doubt at all about "doing it right."

In the case of a suicide attempt, I'd certainly make an attempt if it were possible to pass the person the number of a suicide helpline. If I had enough information about the person threatening self-harm I'd contact the relevant authorites for help.

Having written this, I'd add that there is a great deal of information at WP:Responding_to_threats_of_harm none of which is, to my mind, in conflict with what I've said here, and which provides some cogent advice on finding the right authorities to talk to for threats of self-harm. I'd probably also keep an eye on that page while I was "reacting", with an eye towards "not forgetting something" in a situation where it's all too easy to lose one's calm. --j⚛e decker^talk 18:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5.5. Thanks for the thoughtful answer and please excuse the follow-up. How would you handle a threat from an IP - say for example 74.197.62.175 (talk · contribs)? (I'm picking this IP because it has no edits and I wouldn't want to single a real person out for a theoretical example - I am not trying to imply anything about that particular IP, rather giving a concrete example).

A: Glad to answer follow-ups. I'm going to assume I've come across a very recent threat from that IP. These are the steps I'd consider, of course trying to enlist help where appropriate. (1) Rollback the threat without calling attention to it in the edit summary, considering revision delete/oversite if appropriate (e.g., personal information about the target). (2) Consider blocking the IP, this is a judgement call on whether this will escalate the situation, but I'd guess it's usually appropriate at least on static IPs, I'm not sure if that one is. (3) Consider protecting the page the threat was placed on if doing can be done without calling attention to any personal information about the target of the threat in the process. (4) Contact police in Tyler, Texas (the location of the ISP behind the ISP you provided), and provide them what information I have plus the NOC/abuse numbers and other contact info of the ISP managing the example IP address you provided (available via WHOIS at the bottom of the contributions page for that IP). Let me know if you think I'm missing something important, or if I'm not getting at the aspect of the issue you'd like to see me address, I know this isn't an area I have experience in. --j⚛e decker^talk 21:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional (optional) question from Malleus Fatuorum:

6. What is your view on blocking an editor for using the word "sycophantic" when describing those who hang around the admin wanabee forums like ANI, even though not directed at any specific editor? More generally, what is your take on civility blocks?

A: Before I answer the question, two caveats. The wording of the first part of this question makes me wonder if this question regards a current speciifc case. If it does, I lack that context, and applications of my comments to that context may be totally inappropriate. Second, this isn't an area I have experience in, but the policy (and common sense implications) seem clear enough.

First, the letter of the law questions--that is a personal attack in the Wikipedia policy sense, it's a negative characterization of a group of people based on their affiliation Wikipedia:NPA#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack.3F. (So is, I'll add, is wannabe, although it may not have been intended that way.)

Blocks would sure be my tool of last resort, though, for this or most other civility conflicts. If the situation only really extends to a comment or two over a user's history, that a block would seem to me way too extreme. There might be, depending on the situation, many other ways to resolve the situation more effectively. I could ignore it and hope that it passed. I could call attention to it "Hey, that was uncivil." I could call attention to it and ask the user to stop "Hey, that was uncivil, please stop". I could call attention to it and ask the editor to retract/refactor it. I could bring in someone to mediate. And so on. Blocks are the last, not the first stop on this escalation, save for egregious cases.

Finally, because blocks will likely generate anger and resentment, it seems likely to me that they are only going to be useful if the goal is preventing future attacks, I'd imagine that short-term and even many long-term blocks would escalate, rather than resolve a conflict. --j⚛e decker^talk 07:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification to my answer to Q6: My answer seems to have been read enormously differently than I intended, and if so I apologize. My statement that certain words appeared, "the letter of the law" (e.g., in a technical, wikilawyering sense of the specific policy I cited) a personal attack is still my belief, it's a negative statement, some people will take offense at the characterization, will take it personally. BUT... But in no way did I intend to suggest that such a use was block-proportionate, nor does the very same wikipolicy that I cite suggest that a relatively minor slight be addressed with a block. I agree a block would be enormously disproportionate. The best way to deal with a minor slight is to ignore it, or to mention it and move forward having said no more. It was my intent, by noting the word "wannabe", to note that one could say "hey, someone will take offense at that" and move on, which was intended as a direct demonstration of what I thought a proportional response might be in its entirity. Had I thought more was warrranted, I could have simply demonstrated that, and I didn't. I apparently did not make that point clear, and to the extent that I did not make that clear, people are right to call me on it. --j⚛e decker^talk 14:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional optional question from Jayjg

7. Could you point to three articles whose content you feel you are the primary author of? These could be articles you've created, or articles in which most of the content was written by you.

A: Sure, but let me be the first to admit that I haven't done much large-scale article development, I respect that that is a concern for many. In terms of seeing where I've taken a big role in larger articles, I might point you at the early history of Strauss v. Horton, even if it's only the first two days and couple-dozen edits there are still significant structural elements of my original authorship in the present version. Not sure I'd call myself the primary author anymore, but I certainly was at some point, and I think you can see some of the positives (and flaws!) of how I then (1.5 years back) sketched a longer article under conditions where the case involved was changing quickly. I'm also wary of calling myself "the primary" contributor but would point you at some moderate textual contributions at Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, I started it, but one other editor has done quite a bit of work as well. I follow both and some related articles regularly and try and keep things accurate, there's a lot of misinformation out there and it can be tricky to sort out. Two recent smaller articles to round out the list Quilt National and Elonet, both of which originated because I discovered the lack of articles for them while referencing other articles. And yes, that's four, not three, sorry about that.  :) --j⚛e decker^talk 08:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional optional question from Shadowjams

8. You've used a characteristic edit summary style for quite a while, (for example: +ref, +refl, upd maint tags) dating back to at least 2006. You're not the first person I've seen use it, so forgive me if I'm too new to know it, but is this a result of an automated program or just a standard nomenclature.

A: No worries, glad to answer! It's not a tool/automation behind that style. I'm sure that I use those abbreviations in the same order more often consistently because my browser does autocomplete. I'm surprised that I've been doing it using that style for so long (2006-that's kinda nifty!) I would guess that I picked up my edit summary style by observing other editors and perhaps via WP:ESL. WP:ESL lists some of the abbreviations I use (cat, wl, rv, rvv), but not others (ref, refl, upd). --j⚛e decker^talk 14:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Support. Up here because I can't do it down there. 67.136.117.132 (talk) 16:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IPs cannot add a numerical vote. Jmlk17 16:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. It looks to me as if he'll make a great admin. No problems that I can see. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 18:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support. Contributions look fine, answers to questions are great (and we do need people focused on the areas in question), and he's been nominated by one of the best admins in the business. That's more than enough to satisfy me. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support I tend to favor those who spend time creating audited content, but fixing unsourced BLPs is a necessary task. We need more people who are willing to consider unreferenced BLPs and fairly source them or delete them through our established processes. Jclemens (talk) 18:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support – We need more admins working with BLP, and Joe seems like a great fellow. No problems with me. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 19:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support Excellent collaborator, excellent judgment. Townlake (talk) 19:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support—no red flags. Airplaneman ✈ 20:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support no big concerns here, good work with BLPs. A8x (talk) 20:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support as nom ϢereSpielChequers 21:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
9. Diego Grez ^{what's up?} 22:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support After a closer review lots of great BLP work. I'd advise you to take it steady on CSD, should you get into that, as I noticed some rather dubious WP:PRODs (although you seem to have realised your mistakes on those and fixed them quickly). On balance a cautious editor and to that end I'm overlooking the rather odd sudnen ramp up in activity. Pedro :  Chat  22:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
11. A cursory browse was impressive; strong candidate and trust the nominator. ceranthor 22:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support - comes highly recommended, and I see nothing that causes concern.  Begoon^talk 23:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support Sure. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support. Has the experience, skill and temperament to be a good admin.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 00:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
15. BLP focused editor, we need more of them. Secret ^account 00:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
16. support I've had great interactions with him, he's doing great things with BLPs, and people I trust support him. I'm good. Hobit (talk) 01:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support. We need more people focused on BLP's. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support No concerns BejinhanTalk 04:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support Good BLP work is a major plus. Rje (talk) 09:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support i suspect he will do great. IQinn (talk) 09:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
21. Beat-the-nom support. Will be a great admin on every level. Alzarian16 (talk) 09:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support No issues here. ThemFromSpace 10:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support Epbr123 (talk) 11:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support No problems, only positives :) Acather96 (talk) 11:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support - I have looked through this user's contribution history and he is an exemplary Wikipedian. We are lucky to have him. - Richard Cavell (talk) 11:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support Good answer to my question! Thanks -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 13:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support No issues here.--White Shadows ^{It's a wonderful life} 15:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support User has right mentality and experience; They are a good fit for sysop work. Tyrol5 [Talk] 15:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support A Wikipedian since March 2005 with more than 5000 edits; the candidate's contributions in the area of BLP are exemplary.--Hokeman (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support Okay with me. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 16:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support Lucky number 31... Jmlk17 19:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support Being able to delete is very helpful to someone working in this area, and I'm sure he'll do so only very conservatively. DGG ( talk ) 22:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support on the basis of having no evident problems and having good experience in a slightly undermanned field. Paralympiakos (talk) 00:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support. A courteous editor with strong editorial contributions. We need more admins whose first response to an unreferenced BLP is to make a careful search for sources. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support, and as much as I hate to say this... per nom. Swarm^Talk 03:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support Good enough for WereSpielChequers... good enough for me. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support Looks like he'll do a good job. Coasterlover1994^{Leave your mark!} 06:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support hop aboard....Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
39. support Tommy! [message] 11:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
40. Certainly - though it'd be ideal if his articles were less stubby. He has written some good ones though, and for that reason he has my full support. Kayau Voting IS evil 13:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
41. Long time user, no problems, and your dedication to referencing BLPs shows you've got a good sense of priorities. - Dank (push to talk) 15:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support should be a net positive. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
43. Looks all good. Connormah^talk 18:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
44. Exemplary BLP work. —fetch·comms 20:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support: Should make a fine admin. Toddst1 (talk) 22:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support not a lot of content creation but looks sound all round. Impressive on the BLP sourcing.Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support...can't see any reason to believe tools will be misused.--MONGO 23:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support Looks like excellent admin material to me. -- Marek.69 ^talk 00:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support with no hesitation. BLP is an area in great need. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 01:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
50. Not a name I'm familiar with personally, but I see no reason to oppose. The high esteem in which I hold the nominator and many of those above me convinces me to support- looks like a net positive to me. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support - Very good answers, no problems trusting with a mop. Mlpearc powwow 03:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support - looks fine to me Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 08:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support looks good. Davewild (talk) 09:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support - A year ago I might have !voted to oppose, but I have come to appreciate this type of editor. Plenty of good people already in the support camp... in short, looks like a good choice. Best wishes! Jusdafax 15:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support Experience with BLP is a big plus. Pichpich (talk) 18:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support, with pleasure. J04n(talk page) 22:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support clueful editor who is happy to work in the relatively thankless area of unreferenced BLP sourcing. That sort of temperament translates well to adminship.  –Joshua Scott ^[who?] 23:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support. Seems sensible, and the weak opposes persuaded me to support. Fences&Windows 23:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Please talk about the candidate's attributes and answers rather than those participating in this discussion. Doc Quintana (talk) 01:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It's strange how characterising the honestly held opinions of fellow editors as "weak" is considered to be acceptable, whereas a general comment about admin wannabes results in a block. Malleus Fatuorum 00:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Malleus, I was playing the ball and not the man: I was criticising your arguments, not attacking you or the other opposers. If you'd all like to make a stronger argument that addresses what Joe Decker actually said, including his clarification, rather than what you interpreted him to be saying then I'd be happy to change my wording. "Admin wannabe" is actually an example of incivility (it is "belittling a fellow editor"), but asserting that Joe Decker or any admin would block for it is hyperbole. Fences&Windows 03:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    There admins who do block for that kind of thing, as I have already pointed out; the last thing we need is more of them. Malleus Fatuorum 22:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

59. Looks to do some very good deletion work. I can understand the alarm at the Q6 answer but I don't read it that way.--Mkativerata (talk) 00:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support. I was impressed by his answers, especially to question #5. And I believe his answer to question #6 (especially given the followup and clarification) is fine too. Richwales (talk · contribs · review) 00:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support- I was impressed by the answers to the questions and haven't seen anything troublesome from this editor. Reyk _YO! 03:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support. Orphan Wiki 16:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support No concerns whatsoever. Q6 is a non-issue, from an editor who wrote the book on incivility, as far as I'm concerned. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    You might do well to consider applying the same standards to yourself that you do to others. Malleus Fatuorum 22:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Please talk about the topic rather than the person. Doc Quintana (talk) 01:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

64. Support An excellent, helpful, and thoughtful editor. No concerns at all. --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 20:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
65. Strong Support: This is a near perfect Candidate. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support You are civil and calm, this is great to see in sysops. Allmightyduck  What did I do wrong? 23:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
67. Support - He's admin material alright ;) Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 08:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
68. Support per Pedro and Malleus. GlassCobra 15:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
69. Support He's going to be a great admin with great experience. ActivExpression^Talk_Guestbook 00:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
70. Support per above, and we need more admins. Herostratus (talk) 02:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
71. Support Kansan (talk) 08:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
72. Support. No concerns here. Good luck with the mop! Laurinavicius (talk) 16:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
73. Support. Fully qualified candidate. I have considered the opposers' concerns and find them unpersuasive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
74. Support. 76% of edits are in article space. Promise you'll keep it up after you get the mop. We need more admins who can relate to those in the trenches, and fewer professional Wikipoliticians. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
75. Support: Extra points for civility.--Forty two^{Thanks for all the fish!} 04:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
76. Support - Late to it but no problems. Shadowjams (talk) 07:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
77.  Support Good Luck, Joe Decker. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 07:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
78. Support We're here to write an encyclopaedia. Being focused on that shouldn't count against a candidate. Courcelles (talk) 15:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Mainly per Q6. Saying that the word "wannabe" constitutes a personal attack demonstrates outrageously poor judgement, so I can't personally trust this user with the mop. Also fails my admin criteria, but that is a secondary worry for me. BigDom 11:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. There are already more than enough block-happy administrators without adding another one who considers "wannabe" to be a "personal attack". Malleus Fatuorum 12:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. The answer to Q6 (a straightforward question) displays a gross misunderstanding of 'personal attack'. And we will all be blocked if 'wannabe' is a threshold. Occuli (talk) 12:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Reply to the editors above I have posted a clarifying comment to Q6. It appears that my original response, which I have left intact, was poorly worded, and the responses above seem to me to be an indication that what people are reading there is very different than my intended meaning. I apologize for any confusion, and am happy to elaborate further if desired. --j⚛e decker^talk 14:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill, sheesh (to those above). Tommy! [message] 17:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I have to agree. He didn't say he'd block for that. He was asked to interpret policy, and pointed out that by the letter of the law that is a personal attack. (in parentheses, as an afterthought). He then went on to explain why he would only block in most situations as a last resort. Shall we penalise someone for answering a question carefully and considering all the words in an optional question?  Begoon^talk 17:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   He was given an opportunity to say that he wouldn't block for that, which he did not do. Malleus Fatuorum 17:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Since there is still some question about whether I've said this or not, I'll try more clearly. As I understand the situation, I wouldn't block for that. ...not by a mile, not a close call. --j⚛e decker^talk 17:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   That's how I read it. Thanks for the clarification.  Begoon^talk 17:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Is "sheesh" a personal attack on those above? Like "wannabe"? Malleus Fatuorum 17:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I think that's just standard American English to express discontent. Tommy! [message] 17:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   So it's "a negative characterization of a group of people based on their affiliation", therefore a personal attack according to the candidate. Malleus Fatuorum 17:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   No. Unlike "wannabe" it's not a characterisation. Fainites ^barleyscribs 17:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I think it's an expression of exasperation, but I'm just passing through, so I could be wrong.  Begoon^talk 17:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Have a look at wikt:sheesh. Favonian (talk) 17:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Good idea. wikt:wannabe Fainites ^barleyscribs 17:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I wish we could all stop making each other "an offender for a word" (Isaiah 29:21) and try harder to really communicate. Richwales (talk · contribs · review) 16:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Hey Joe, I think people were just messing with you to see how you would react. You passed with flying colours! - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4. This user's grammar is somewhat poor, to the point that it is difficult for me to even understand his answers to some of the above questions without reading them multiple times. If an admin is going to take action on my edits or my account, I need to be able to understand their explanation. SnottyWong ^spout 23:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Hey Snotty is wong. Your grammar is fine. Nobody is going to have trouble understanding you. - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   PS Snotty your last line should read "If an admin is going to take action on my edits or my account, I need to be able to understand his explanation." This was just one of your many mistakes. - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Ret.Prof, I see nothing wrong with SW's grammar, although I don't agree with their position. You created the problem in your post directly above this by challenging the correctness of "and admin" (which is fine). SW was speaking in general terms, and therefore they used a singular they (as I did twice in this comment). I really didn't see the need to pick on this oppose the way you did. Airplaneman ✈ 03:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I am pleased pleased that you agree with me. As to Snotty's grammar well . . . - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC) (or should that be pleases or very pleased?)[reply]

   It's actually quite acceptable to use the singular they when you don't want to make any assumptions about the subject's gender. Although, with a name like Joe Decker, I suppose I could have assumed the gender with some degree of confidence. SnottyWong ^talk 16:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5. Oppose for now. Joe has only really been continuously active since around March this year. [1] I've like to see a bit more continuous involvement before he becomes an admin, and more talk-page interaction, rather than the bulk of the editing (over 75 percent) in article space. Will be happy to support next time. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose. The issue raised above by SlimVirgin is the only thing that makes me hesitate. Agree with Slim. -- Jack?! 22:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose per Slim. GregJackP Boomer! 15:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Neutral, Leaning Towards Support Q6 gave me some concerns, but not enough for an oppose. Doc Quintana (talk) 01:40, 29 July 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.