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

Final (22/37/8); Closed as unsuccessful by WjBscribe at 18:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jouster (talk · contribs) - Jouster (that's me) has been an editor of the 'pedia since April 2003. My User ID is 10391; back in mah day, we all actually did {{User typewriter2}}, and we had to walk uphill to the database server, both ways, in the snow, barefoot. And it was a Commodore 64.

Back on a serious note, I'm applying to adminship per WP:DEAL, and with some very, very specific caveats, listed in my responses to questions #1 and #4. You can read more about me here and you can get some idea of my approach to communication and conflict resolution over here. Jouster  (whisper) 18:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional statement regarding edit count: I am a lensing editor; I may not make the edits by quantity, but my relatively-few, well-placed edits enable those who do. That I know of, I have contributed significantly to the ability of Noroton (nearly 30,000 edits) and User:Joseph A. Spadaro (a little under 12,000 edits) to continue editing on the Project. I have made significant progress with some people with whom I very strongly disagree, and in every dispute in which I've participated, regardless of whether I was a party or I stuck my nose in, the parties have come out the better for my involvement. So, fine, my edit count is a little low, but that's in part because I've gone out of my way not to inflate it by using edit previews, editing articles en bloc rather than section-by-section when making extensive changes, not using WP:AWB, etc. I am deeply disappointed by this focus on edit count; were I to point to my longevity on the project as the sole reason to support me, you would doubtless be very upset with me. I quote:

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

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

A: Broadly, only {{editprotected}} requests and WP:SNOW. See my answer to Question #4, below.

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

A: I am immensely proud of accomplishments like User_talk:Jouster#Yep.2C_it_was_just_miscommunications. The original situation was fast devolving into a likely long-term block. Both parties were talking past each other. I stepped in, evaluated the evidence on both sides, and wrote an opinion that the user was being misunderstood. User:The Transhumanist (a spectacular asset to the Encyclopedia) then stepped up and offered to mentor the "problem" user. That "problem" user, fast on the track to throwing up his hands in disgust with the whole Wikipedia process, now has nearly 12,000 edits.

I'm also very proud of having edited in the midst of this without getting scorched by the fires around me. I made one edit in good faith, saw it was reverted, and didn't start a war over it; I then made a couple other minor edits that cleaned up the page significantly. I'm also heartened by this.

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: Absolutely. Heat builds up as a result of friction whenever two parts of a machine touch one another; the same is true of people working on an encyclopedia. I'd love to say that I've invariably handled myself with grace and aplomb, but instead I can only say that I've done what I thought was right at the time, and I've been very careful to go back and make corrective edits (<s>) or otherwise clarify my intentions (or clarify my understanding of policy) whenever possible. Have I toed the line or stepped over it in one or two cases? Sure. But I work on contentious issues, contentious pages, and with strong-willed fellow Wikipedians. Every edit I've made has been better than my last, and I've never even been so much as accused of edit-warring. Here's the take-away about me when it comes to my interactions with difficult users and difficult situations: If my Talk page rhetoric should get heated, it's in the pursuit of a better article and a better Project, and it's because I believe a 24kb talk page so we can have a perfect 2kb article is the essence of Wikipedia, whereas sniping at one another in edit summaries is certainly not.

4. You don't participate at WT:RFA, you can't name the categories of WP:CSD, and you show no appreciation of blocking policy. Why in the world would I trust you with admin tools? (asked by Jouster)

A: You should trust me with administrator tools because I won't use them. Confused? Read on.

I will flatly state the following:

• I will review and implement {{editprotected}} requests according to my best judgment, and only after a thorough review of article history.
• I will close WP:AFD, WP:MFD, etc., only in cases where the outcome is plainly obvious.
• I will not block for more than 60 minutes, I will only do so in circumstances where there is a clear and immediate danger represented by continued access by the user in question, and I will immediately appeal my own decision to AN/I for consideration by an administrator who can then apply a block of the correct length.
• I will use other administrative powers solely where WP:SNOW might apply, and only after having carefully examined appropriate policy pages to ensure that my reasoning is correct. Barring WP:SNOW in a situation involving community input, I will not use admin tools not specifically listed above under any circumstances.
• In the event that I make a block or perform any other administrative action that is incorrect (i.e., is overturned), I will immediately cease use of administrator tools in that category until I have satisfied myself that I have a full understanding of the policies involved.
• I will list myself at WP:AOR, with the following requirements:
  • Any two users in good standing (as determined by a reputable third party of my choosing) may request that I stand for re-confirmation. Any single administrator, bureaucrat, or user named "Jimbo Wales" may request that I stand for re-confirmation. Any ten users identified solely by IP addresses without a history of vandalism and with a non-trivial history of article contributions may request that I stand for re-confirmation as long as they are not in the same RIR-assigned netblock. Jouster  (whisper) 18:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5. (as always, all questions are optional) There are three main sorts of editprotected requests: adding interwikis/typo fixing/appearance tweaks to high-risk templates and interface messages, technical improvements to high-risk templates and interwikis, and edits to temporarily protected articles. Do you plan to work on all of these, or just some? Do you plan to use protect/unprotect on high-risk pages, or just editprotected? What is your technical knowledge of the MediaWiki namespace like (normally irrelevant for most admins, but a lot more important for administrators who want to work on editprotectededs)? --ais523 19:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Good questions! I intend to work on typo-fixing {{editprotected}}s and appearance tweaks, as I can verify myself that they are correct. I will add interwiki links only where I can verify that they are not attempts at vandalism (i.e., where I can confirm that someone isn't interwiki'ing phlogiston theory to the Russian vagina page). Technical improvements would be largely outside the scope of my expertise; though I am a competent programmer and I have made templates that accept parameters, the vagaries of the parser are not my forté. Edits to temporarily-protected articles most-closely mesh with my original statement regarding fulfillment of editprotected requests: namely, that I will perform them, but only after a thorough review of any cited sources and of the article history to ensure I am not perpetuating an edit war. I will not cancel edit requests, I will simply decline to service them, leaving a note as to why so the next administrator to come along can make a more-informed decision.

Protecting pages is outside the scope of my self-assigned duties, barring WP:SNOW. Unprotection falls under the same category. I will perform neither barring overwhelming consensus that would be self-evident to any casual observer.

My knowledge of the MediaWiki namespace is incomplete, but I'm not entirely a stranger to it. I do have bureaucrat-level access on another MediaWiki, used by a diverse (but controlled) group of people across the Internet and related to some work I'm doing at the moment, and I've had occasion to change one or two MediaWiki namespace items as part of that responsibility. I read the documentation twice before I change anything on that Wiki, and it's not even publicly-viewable. I cannot imagine a situation wherein I'd feel comfortable implementing an editrequest on a MediaWiki page here. Jouster  (whisper) 20:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

6. Optional question from Mr Senseless You said above that you would only block users for longer than 60 minutes if there is clear and present danger to the project. How do you define clear and present danger to the project?

To some extent, it is necessarily a judgement call. Therefore, in an attempt to answer your question with more than just, "I know it when I see it," I'll provide three examples along the spectrum of possible blockworthy behavior, one at the extreme high end of "clear and present danger", one at the extreme low end, and one at the extreme high end of behavior that does not quite qualify.

• A user using a form of automated editing to make wholesale and rapid changes where those changes are time-consuming to reverse, such as moving hundreds of pages in the span of a few minutes, and where the moves are blatant vandalism, and whose last such action was very recent, would unquestionably qualify for a block.
• A user actively (read: very recently) engaged in what I'll call "subtle" vandalism—not blanking pages, adding the word "fuck", etc., but changing uncited facts to slightly-incorrect ones, or adding new information with fake references—and whose account has been used solely for making such changes, would just barely qualify for the "clear and present danger" label.
• A user whose account is used solely for vandalism, whose vandalism is subtle and hard-to-spot, whose username almost certainly violates WP:U, who has been harassing other editors on their User and Talk pages, and whose presence has already caused a newbie to quit due to being bitten by our merry little troll in question, and whose last edit was two hours ago would not qualify for the label. The user is almost certainly due a hit with the blockstick, but there's no reason here for me to rush into the fray myself, as the user is unlikely to commit large-scale or difficult-to-revert vandalism in the period of time between when I might have blocked him and when an administrator with fuller knowledge of the blocking policy could respond to my alert at AIV.

Good question! I had to think about it quite a bit; as I said, my first response was Justice Stewart's. As such, the examples listed are guidelines to my thinking, not templates by which I would judge each case. Of course, if I made a bad block, I would fully expect to be AOR'd, and, indeed, were I not, I'd likely recall myself, anyway. The only reason I even gave myself the ability to block at all is because there are some cases where the potential harm from wrongly blocking is nonexistent, and the potential benefit is great. The only way a block I gave would be overturned is if I'm violating one of those two requirements, so a recall would be not only proper, it'd be a solemn duty of anyone who spotted such a mistake on my part. Jouster  (whisper) 07:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

7. Optional question from Mr Senseless You stated that you will only use your admin powers in specific instances above. Would you consider branching beyond those as you gain more experience as a sysop?

Again, this is an excellent question, as evidenced by the fact that it's hard for me to write a concise answer. I think the issue here is your phrasing; I would not be gaining experience in areas outside my specific expertise as a sysop, as I wouldn't be participating in those areas as a sysop. If, however, as an editor, I started to gain insight into a new area, I would apply for admin coaching on that specific area, ensure that I was up to speed on all the relevant policies, procedures, and guidelines, and then re-apply at RfA, seeking to expand my areas of professed interest, expertise, and willingness to perform administrative actions. If for any reason I were to overstep the narrow bounds of my self-imposed "admin cage" without following this seemingly-roundabout process, I would not only expect but demand that someone call me to task on my behavior, at a minimum with a harshly worded message on my Talk page, and more than likely with a motion for recall.

The lines surrounding my adminship are clearly drawn, and the consequences are both immediate and well-understood. I'd have absolutely no reason to toe the line, much less step boldly over it. Jouster  (whisper) 07:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

8. Optional question from Shoessss: I am sorry I am posing this question so late in your Rfa, however, why do you think you need the additional buttons that an admistrator has, given the restriction you are placing on yourself? Shoessss |  Chat  18:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First off, my apologies for the delay in my reply. In the future, if you need a question answered urgently, please feel free to email me.

I do not believe I need the additional buttons. I can continue my current editing style, and likely will, regardless of this RfA's conclusion. I've gotten very mellow over the years; there will be no, "I'm leaving the project, you all hate me! Goodbye, cruel world!" drama from me.

I simply believe in the following two precepts:

1. Given the admin tools, I can make a larger net-positive contribution to Wikipedia than I otherwise would, and
2. Adminship is not a big deal, so though I am not entitled to it, I feel I've proved my worth sufficiently to merit the bit.

Put another way, I agree with the ideals expressed here, and I feel I fulfill his criteria. If you feel that I do not, allow me to attempt to convince you otherwise. Failing that, all I ask is that, when you oppose, you give me a clear, specific set of goals that I must accomplish in order to make myself a better person and a better Wikipedian. Jouster  (whisper) 04:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Links for Jouster: Jouster (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

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

1. Support. I wasn't around for this particular bit of "history" cited by R.Postelthwaite, but if M.Animum and Jouster have "kissed and made up", then I don't see the harm here. Length of time of service outweighs the admittedly low edit count over said time period and convinces me that this user will not misuse the extra admin buttons because I'm convinced he understands policy (how could you not after 4+ years?). Very explicitly states above what he will and will not be doing as an admin, and fortifies it with some of the most liberal CAT:AOR criteria that I've seen to be able to quickly remove the bit if needed. You have my support. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Much appreciated, though I'll point out that I made relatively-few edits during my early years. Still, you are correct that my understanding of policy is based on a long history of having read policies in depth, at length, and with a careful eye whenever they applied to a situation at hand; I am definitely of the "measure twice, cut once" school of thought. Thanks for inaugurating the "support" section! Jouster  (whisper) 19:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. Support. (I was inclined towards this anyway when I asked Q5, but wanted to get a better idea of the situation.) I don't know how many admins frequently look at CAT:PER, but it often gets filled up with the non-technical requests that require a good understanding of how to handle edit warriors that are insisting 'zOMG WRONG VERSION!' (I mostly work on the technical and noncontroversial requests there, which were often backlogged at the time when I applied for adminship, but which have since got better, mostly due to the hard work of other administrators.) Requests to change something on a page protected due to edit warring have been known to mount up, and many admins (at least me, and probably many others) wouldn't have the skill or temperament to work on them. (The one time I tried, it lead to a minor controversy.) The risk of an abuse of administrator tools seems low; I have no reason to believe Jouster to be a POV-pusher, and with the bar for desysopping voluntarily set this low, and the self-restriction on the administrator tools to use, I don't think there's much other chance of causing long-term problems. If a user can demonstrate that it would be to the community's interest for them to become an administrator, that greatly inclines me to support, especially in a case like this where the risk of tool misuse is low. --ais523 20:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
3. Support — After a review of his recent edits (which was quite easy, BTW :-D), I believe he is qualified to do the work he wishes to do. So I'll assume good faith and give the guy a chance. After all, he seems truly willing to help out, even if only limitedly; that's always a good sign, IMO. --Agüeybaná 20:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support - WP:AGF - has experience despite a low edit-count. No recent problems. And why can't he ask himself a question? Other candidates have at their RfAs. EJF (talk) 20:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support on the basis of the AOR criteria laid out by the candidate. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Strong support. I am sure he won't abuse the tools, since he isn't even very interested in most of them. His attitude suggests that if he does become interested, he will learn to use them appropriately. In fact, I support a candidate who has an earnest, serious want for the tools (or only one tool); it's far easier to assume good faith with them. --Ginkgo100^talk 00:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support - WP:AGF, is open to recall. Tiptoety ^talk 01:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support — Yes, we definitely have our history, some of it I wish didn't happen, but facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored (Aldous Huxley); we both have to come to terms with it, and have (see his talk page and response on mine; I won't provide diffs because you'll look for them yourself if you truly want to see the exchanged words). "[...] You had three neutral admins very much ready to block you and start an RfC over it [...]" – this may be true, but if you reverse the viewpoints and look at things from another perspective, you will find that I instigated many of the arguments and word battles, but that's not to say Jouster didn't respond in a manner that refueled the process. However, his recent editing, collaboration with The Transhumanist over Joseph A. Spadaro and his labor for the Arbitration Committee by clerking relentlessly are compensation for all of that, not to mention that the fault of reciprocally exacerbating each other's anger probably falls more on my shoulders than his. On another note, I would not recommend placing yourself in CAT:RECALL indefinitely without criteria that would eliminate any possibility of being unjustly de-sysopped (if this RfA is to pass, of course ). Best wishes, —Animum (talk) 01:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. AGF. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 08:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support, if you can make peace with the Animum, then you must have at least some maturity and responsibility. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
11. Support per answer to question 4. -- Visviva (talk) 12:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support I trust him with the tools, and even if he just uses them for limited purposes, it is worth it if he uses them to just one good effect. - Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 18:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support — a clear example where a division of admin tools would be beneficial to the project. --Haemo (talk) 02:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support - TwoOars 16:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
15. Why the hell not? Ral315 (talk) 18:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support per Maximillian...--Camaeron (talk) 20:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support per many of the above comments. Dreamspy (talk) 21:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support I think he'd make a good admin. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 23:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
19. I suggest you come back in a couple of months after researching the stringent requirements of most RfA voters these days. You'd have passed easily a couple of years back. Nothing has changed, people are just more fussy these days. Some admins were made admins before the blocking policy was even created. And I expect it's changed since I last read it (October 2006). Pretty petty reasoning with opposing per experience, but these days people think edits = experience, when it doesn't really. I'd rather have an admin who actually put thought into each and every edit they made, instead of pressing the R key thousands of times a day to revert on Huggle. While there were problems with Animum last year, guess what? I forgive you. You apologised, we all make silly mistakes. That's one thing a lot of users lack: forgiveness. They'll hold a grudge for one little mistake and it'll curse you forever and ever. Anyway, while this RfA will fail, I hope you come back after a few sessions with Huggle or Twinkle and the edit counters' requirements will be fulfilled, and perhaps you'll have more of a chance? Happy editing. Majorly (talk) 13:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow. That's a pretty harsh indictment. You also seem to be saying someone need not understand the policies regarding tool use to use the tools. That's confusing to me. And how do you measure experience if not by-- experience? Just because someone makes a lot of software assisted edits does not mean that judgment did not come into play. The software just makes it easier to be more efficient. It does not mean you don't engage your brain in the process. Generally, I don't believe anyone encounters a wide enough variety of situations in well less than 3,000 edits to have seen enough to have developed judgment. Adminship is no big deal, but it does require a certain measure of trust. That means experience overall, and a certain amount of time and editing after a questionable behavior. Suggesting that a user needs about 3,000 more edits and to return in about 3 months is not "cursing them for ever and ever." As for "forgiveness," the largest concern I have seen expressed (in over a year of participating in RfA's) over adminship has been incivility in the recent past. The incident in question was far enough in the past that it is not concerning for me. As you point out, the other party to that dispute has supported this candidate. That does not mean that the community can not feel the matter should have been handled better at that the time. Further, the making of amends was only quite recent. I do not think it unreasonable to have expected more water to have gone under the bridge. Cheers, and happy editing. Dlohcierekim 17:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

20. I find the above argument by Majorly very convincing, as well as the other arguments in support of Jouster. Acalamari 16:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
21. Weak Support I think you would make a good admin, but I have noted some harassment cases from the past. However, this does appear to have changed for the better now. αѕєηιηє ^t/_c 18:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support I have no litmus test for my !vote. I explicitly reject edit counts and similar numerical measures of an editor's worth or suitability. This editor has been here since 2003. They have not pulled down the walls yet. Nearly 5 years in this community with no block history and evidence of resolved conflicts makes me confident in supporting this RfA. A minor consideration in my decision is that editors whom I admire are supporting Jouster while an editor whose judgment I find questionable is a loud voice in opposition. We're getting a bargain here in that we can apparently increase the admin count without increasing the ego count. Give Jouster the tools. If a problem develops, they can be taken away. It's really no big deal. --SSBohio 21:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Very reluctant oppose – I’m sorry Jouster, you’re obviously dedicated but I can’t help but still be concerned about your harassment of Animum from July. Here and here are some of the threads you started on his talk page, not to mention a Village pump thread about it. You got warnings off me[1] and various other admins [2] which lead to a AN/I thread. I realise that this is a long time ago, but you have made less than 500 edits since then and I therefore do not believe sufficient editing time has passed to show there will not be a relapse of this behaviour in the future. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Magnus and I have since resolved our differences. Read what he wrote and my response. His words probably answer your concern more thoroughly than my own could. Jouster  (whisper) 19:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   My issue isn't how this has now been resolved, it's how it was orignally handled. Animum may forgive you and feel he acted irrationally, but you had three neutral admins very much ready to block you and start an RfC over it - as I said, it's not the be all and end all, but I certainly would like to see more editing experience to show you really have got over it. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   You are entitled to your opinion and your vote. Thank you for explaining your concerns, but your suggested resolution (acquire more edits) is disingenuous given that the number of edits I've made since that time represent over half of my total edit count on the 'pedia. Furthermore, if your concern is that I might misuse administrator tools, I'll note that you, as an administrator, could, on your sole whim, recall me. Thus, your concern appears to come down to my character as an editor. Even if I were Willy on Wheels, if my only administrator actions were under WP:SNOW, why would that matter? I have a hard time imagining that you think I'm a "sleeper" vandal account, so what is your rationale? And, failing that I might convince you to change your vote, would you consider revising your suggested resolution to a more-achievable benchmark, given context of me as a low-edit-count editor working largely though enormous Talk page posts? It seems strange that, in order to satisfy your current request, I might apply for AWB solely to pump up my edit count a bit. Jouster  (whisper) 19:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   My concern is that you will act like this with another editor and it will come with more teeth if you had the admin tools. I also wonder if you would use the tools in a similar incident in the future. My main reason for this oppose however is that the incident has seriously led me to question your judgement and temprement. I actually class what you did as quite a serious incident, and less than 500 edits is not enough evidence to show me you've changed. Of course, I'm not suggesting you start using automated tools, but real life time is no substitute for on-wiki evidence. Maybe you aren't the most prolific editor here, but that means you will have to work longer before I believe that an incident like the one I quote will not reoccur. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Please note Animum's support !vote and his rationale, above. Jouster  (whisper) 06:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Look, what happened in the past hapeened in the past - it's not a big deal, unless it's fully vandalism. You just get on with it. In my opinion as long as they apologised made up -it's fine (unless it's like murder). Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 04:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. Strong oppose - I do not believe you are admin material, quite frankly. For one, you don't have nearly enough editing experience, nor is it very well-rounded. Secondly, you posed a question to yourself (#4), that by it's very tone, isn't very serious, which leads to my doubts as to how seriously you would handle admin functions. ArcAngel (talk) 19:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Please define "editing experience" in this context. I have significantly more non-minor, non-vandal-fighting article-space edits than other recent candidates. If you are counting edits, see WP:ITIS and note my comment, above; I refuse to acquire AWB usage with a primary goal of inflating my edit count. If you are counting longevity or quality as evidence of experience, on the other hand, I feel I've been misjudged and would appreciate your reasoning.

   As to attacking me over the tone of my question to myself, that's something of a low blow. I'm having fun editing the Project; there's little else that could have kept me around for five years. Think of it like a job interview—yes, I'll wear a suit and tie, but if I don't even crack a smile throughout the interview, you'd think I was a little unbalanced, no? I viewed it as a safe place to let a little of my flair show. If you don't like the question, edit it or add another; I don't WP:OWN anything on this page, and I give you specific and express permission to edit in good faith anything I've written above the !voting section. Jouster  (whisper) 19:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Roughly 44% of your edits have been to talk pages - "edits" that really are of no significance when it comes to adminship, IMHO. 107 of your edits were in the 4 year period of 2003-2006 - not exactly prolific, nor sustained. Longevity does not equal experience - longevity+editing does - while you have one (longevity), you certainly have not acquired nearly enough editing experience at this point in time to hold an adminship. You need to be more rounded - learn WP inside/out, expand stubs, re-write articles to pass to GA status, revert vandals, report suspicious usernames - things of that nature. ArcAngel (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I would argue that the number of edits to mainspace Talk, mainspace itself, and User Talk should be combined in order to develop a true idea of my editing character. I work by consensus-building and extensive Talk page discussion, coupled with a liberal dose of WP:BOLD. A good example of the sort of Talk page posts I make is here, which, if you look at the edit immediately before, you'll see took me about three and a half hours, as I had to stop and learn Wikipedia table syntax, math syntax, to reread the article (all 45kb of it, 13 pagelengths in my browser), and then to do the actual math. I find your dismissive attitude towards Talk pages alarming. As explained in my answer to question 3, "I believe a 24kb talk page so we can have a perfect 2kb article is the essence of Wikipedia". Jouster  (whisper) 04:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I say quality over quantity - you anyone could do 100000000000000 edits for all I care and every single one of them could be pathetic Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 05:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I haven't the slightest clue if you're agreeing with me, disagreeing with me, or insulting me. Can you please rephrase your statement to help me understand? Jouster  (whisper) 05:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3. Oppose – The first and main reason for my opinion to oppose is the lack of experience. You have just over 1,100 edits. Personally, nowhere near the amount of experience necessary to have the responsibility that comes along with the tools. Secondly, just read the question you yourself submitted as question 4. I am all for light heartiness, to a point and from my standpoint (pun intended) I believe you crossed that threshold. Are these concerns insurmountable, of course not! This brings me back to my original stance, just a lack of experience. Good Luck to you and with some more time here at Wikipedia would be happy to support next time around. Shoessss |  Chat  19:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Lack of experience, too little edits. Get more experience and I will support in a few months. NHRHS2010NHRHS2010 20:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I have moved my reply to the main candidate statement section.

   Jouster  (whisper) 20:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Comment - Hey Jouster I agree that the number of edits does not necessarily reflect the quality of the edits. However, we are not discussing your ability to edit but what your edit count signifies. With such a low number of edits for me, indicates very little interaction with the community at large. As an administrator, one of the many duties does require interactions among a wide variety of individuals. I know you say, I will not use the tools for this or that, however promises and actuality are two separate and distinct realities. At this time, and I will be honest here, you have not earned my trust. This again, points to my initial opinion, not enough experience. And yet again, both trust and respect are earned or received over time and interactions. Just not there yet, sorry. Shoessss |  Chat  20:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I would argue that other admin candidates who acquire their edits largely through vandal reversion and AWB use have less user interaction—and certainly less interaction with well-intentioned but tendentious editors—than I have had over the course of my WikiCareer. I encourage you to examine my record and come to your own conclusion. Jouster  (whisper) 04:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Moving to neutral. Look forward to this candidate trying again with more experienceSorry, but no. Even per my "specialist admin criteria," I would like to see more experience. Though my criteria are not as stringent as others, I would like to see more encyclopedia building and activity in admin areas. One needs to be more active in order to keep up with the community's view of consensus. Dlohcierekim 20:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   The quality over quantity thing does not really apply. I'm sorry, your edits are not that outstanding. Frankly, you just haven't been around enough to know policy well enough for me to trust you with the tools. Gain more experience and demonstrate good knowledge of the pertinent policies and I'll be happy to support. Dlohcierekim 22:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5. Oppose - Can't do it in good conscience, sorry. You lack vital experience in the project - and your Q4 is, quite frankly, strange and frivolous. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Weak oppose. A friendly user and a dedicated user, but one that ultimately lacks the experience to wield the mop. I'm not basing this solely on Jouster's edit count though (as Jouster mentions, it's the quality of the edits, not the quantity), but his reply to Question Four and his lack in participation of the deletion process (such as AfD) concerns me. An administrator needs to be well-rounded when it comes to contributions, as it's generally unacceptable for an admin to have no clue on a task that he is obligated as an admin to do, such as closing deletion requests. The conflicts pointed out by Ryan worry me as well.--TBC!?! 21:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   To both you and others (WBOSITG, Arcangel, and others) opposing me for lack of experience in specific areas of the project (AfD and WP:U enforcement are two that have caught my eye), given that I've said that I won't be involved in any of those areas barring the occasional WP:SNOW, what harm do you imagine I could visit with admin tools? Given my exceedingly-liberal recall conditions, even if I were to make a terrible decision, how many do you think I could make before any one administrator or any two users would trigger my recall? I cannot help but feel that you are couching reservations about my edit count in other language; if you feel that I haven't earned the community's trust, I can only point to very-high-edit-count users who evidently have.

   Basically, I am baffled by opposes such as this. I do not need experience in AfD in order to service {{editprotected}} requests. Ryan is questioning my judgment and character, and while I don't agree with his analysis, I respect his !vote. But opposing me based on lack of participation on a specific topic or out of a fear that I haven't demonstrated sufficient knowledge of policy, when I've made very, very clear the constraints I'll place on myself, seems on the surface like WP:ITIS in its worst form. Our goals here are to further the Project in a meaningful way. If you genuinely, honestly believe that I will do net harm to the encyclopedia, or even the lower standard of "more harm to the encyclopedia with admin tools than I would cause without them", please explain to me how. If I agree with you, I will immediately withdraw the nomination. As all actions (even administrator actions) are reversible, however, and given that I have a one-strike-and-I'm-out policy for myself, please help me to comprehend how in the world such a view is reasonable, or assist me in understanding your opposition to my answer to question number four. Jouster  (whisper) 22:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm not sure why it is so bemusing to find users that see your lack of Wikipedia experience as a primary concern. Administrators have "specialized" and authoritative privileges and while, (per Jimbo), it's "no big deal", there still comes with the position a certain level of responsibility. Yes, we can WP:AGF and trust every word you say regarding what you will and will not participate in, but I can almost guarantee that sometime down the road someone will look to you for help regarding an editing conflict, dispute resolution process, "arbitration", a block, or defer to you at WP:ANI or your talk page. You simply have not demonstrated a profound well-rounded knowledge of policy, and you lack the fundamental editing experience that administrators are required to possess in case such incidents present themselves to you. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Please don't confuse lack of contributions in certain areas that are obligatory for admins with WP:ITIS. A user (and this has happened before) can have 10,000 edits and still be rejected for lack of experience if the user in question has never once participated in anything other than just vandalfighting or posting in AfD's or.. well, you get the point.--TBC!?! 08:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Thank you both. These two replies have helped me understand your concerns far better. I can see how the mere fact of my status as an administrator might result in undue deference being paid to my opinions. As such, if it would resolve the issue Wisdom69 brings up here, I conditionally offer my guarantee not to identify myself in any way as an administrator on my User page. True, it wouldn't stop all avenues by which the causes for Wisdom's concern might arise, but it eliminates most; a user coming from an edit I had made outside the scope of my administrative responsibilities would have to perform unlikely and unusual actions to suss out the existence of my sysop bit. Would that be acceptable?

   TBC, I take issue with the very phrase "certain areas that are obligatory for admins", presuming that the last part would read "to edit in". Even the best administrator from this Encyclopedia would create more problems than they might solve were we to unleash them on the XfD process at another Wiki whose language they don't speak, or direct them to edit Portal:Math were they dedicated solely to the literary arts. Expertise and proficiency in a wide variety of pursuits is an admirable quality in a human being, but artificially enforcing it in an administrator candidate is likely as not to result in prospective administrators participating in places where they'll do more harm than good, as in the previous two examples.

   We are getting dangerously close to WT:RFA territory here, however, so I'll just note that I respectfully disagree with your statement, TBC. If you'd like to continue this discussion on a Talk page somewhere, please drop me a link. (Though lest I violate the spirit of WP:WORD, you are of course welcome to reply here, as well!) Jouster  (whisper) 14:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Let me clarify, I'm referring that an editor applying for adminship needs to demonstrate that he understands and knows how to apply all the major Wikipedian policies and guidelines (ie WP:CSD), not that an editor needs to participate in every single project or in every single subject matter. Either way, it's just a personal preference, though I do hope that helps to clear things up. Oh, and in an unrelated topic, that WP:WORD stuff really cracked me up. If your opponent attempts to seize the last word for themselves, be careful to point out the folly of this strategy, perhaps citing this project page. This clever technique allows you to simultaneously regain the last word for yourself while making any sort of reply from your opponent seem in bad faith.--TBC!?! 20:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

7. Weak oppose. "You don't participate at WT:RFA, you can't name the categories of WP:CSD, and you show no appreciation of blocking policy. Why in the world would I trust you with admin tools?" That kind of says it all. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{aka john lennon} 22:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Right, to rephrase that oppose (it seemed to cause the user some amount of disdain to read), I don't like the idea of specialist administrators. There are a number of reasons, but the most critical one is that they only help in a few areas. Wikipedia is a huge encyclopedia with a huger technical aspect; I simply cannot support someone who will not help at the "major" admin areas of CSD, blocking and AfD. Once again, I am really sorry for any outrage caused by my oppose statement - which in my mind isn't wrong in any way - but I simply cannot support. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{aka john lennon} 19:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Thank you for clarifying your views. While I was not offended by your rationale, I did feel that it was not particularly helpful, either to me or to anyone else reading the discussion. This expansion entirely resolves that confusion on my part, at least, so, again, thank you for writing it. May I also please take the opportunity to point you to WP:AAAD#Doesn.27t_need_the_tools? I feel it has applicability to your argument, and I'd be interested to hear your response. Jouster  (whisper) 08:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

8. Sorry - without even looking past your nom statement, I know I can't support. There is no guarantee that you will abide by what you say, and it will be quite difficult to censure you for, say, making a 2 hour block when you said 1 hour was your limit. As noted above, the Archtransit RfA is a good example of why we can't approve admins with self-imposed restrictions as to what they will do. It would be admirable if you were to say that you would not involve yourself in areas where you lacked insight or experience (until you acquired one, the other, or both), but thats not what you've said. Avruch ^T 22:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I'll note, too, that I am not opposing based on the number of edits you've made. Avruch ^T 22:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   "It would be admirable if you were to say that you would not involve yourself in areas where you lacked insight or experience (until you acquired one, the other, or both)," is more or less exactly what I was trying to get across; if I have failed to do so, it is down to my attempt to provide solid, exact circumstances under which the WP:AOR would apply, or my personal failing in communication. If the latter, my apologies, and please help me correct it. Jouster  (whisper) 01:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

9. Oppose Issues bought up by Ryan, the infrequency of editing since those issues and mostly your personal Q4 which, when you really consider it, was hardly going to be in your favour at RfA; Hence shows a concerning lack of judgement. Sorry. Pedro :  Chat  22:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. No, per Ryan and lack of experience. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 22:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. Oppose per all the above concerns. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 23:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. Oppose serial assumptions of bad faith, pretty shocking behaviour around Animum as brought up by Ryan. I rarely oppose when there's an opposing majority, but I must regretfully make an exception here. Sorry. ~ Riana ⁂ 00:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    In his defense, I said a lot of things I shouldn't have said that could have caused it all never to have happened. —Animum (talk) 01:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

13. Oppose - Marginally meeting my standards, but the concerns pushed me over. Sorry. Bearian (talk) 02:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
14. Oppose - You have got to be kidding me: if there is one thing I have learned from my RFA experience, which is not much, it is not a good idea to state you do not know the blocking policy or WP:CSD. The user's own words clearly states that he does not need nor will he use the admin tools, so why should he have them? In addition, there are other problems, like the certain user conflicts others are mentioning above as well as the lack of experience that a lot of people are concerned with. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 03:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
15. Oppose - Not knowing the blocking policy is mainly what got me. Sorry, not this time. Also, less than 2k edits isn't very strong. Undeath (talk) 03:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
16. Oppose This is a little too out of process for me to be comfortable with. GlassCobra 07:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
17. Oppose Far too early for me to feel confident in it. Jmlk17 12:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please define "early" in this context. I've been editing for approximately half a decade, I've been writing article for four years, and I've been actively involved for over twelve months. Looking at the first ten on the list of February's confirmed RfA candidates so far (as of [3]), I see ones with two and a half months of extensive editing, ten months, six months, and eight and a half months. Forty percent of recent successful RfA candidates have less time actively contributing to the Encyclopedia than do I, 100% have less time writing articles, and 100% have less time since they started editing the Project.

    I flatly refuse to artificially inflate my edit count for any reason. Yes, I could go grab TWINKLE and spend a day reverting vandals, but what does that prove? I've done RC patrol when I've been spectacularly bored, and it brings me no particular joy, whereas carefully pruning vandalism (sometimes going back over a month) out of my small group of watched articles consistently delivers a great deal of pleasure. If your argument is "early in your progress as a Wikipedian", please accept my apologies and expound on what you mean by such a statement, but I do not think I have misread your concern here. My faith in the RfA process has been shaken by those who see an edit count under 2,000 and do not pause to consider the time and thought I put into every single one of those. This edit took me well over forty minutes (it may be a bit longer once I finish previewing and correcting; the actual amount of time I spent is the difference between this comment's timestamp and 03:49), and the responses to Mr Senseless, above, probably took me well over an hour. I don't know what experience RC patrollers gain from racking up two to three edits per Twinkle-click (revert, Talk page notice, and sometimes an AIV post) that so severely outweighs that which I gain by spending forty minutes trying to understand your point of view and convince you that mine is, in fact, correct. Jouster  (whisper) 08:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I never wanted you to inflate your edit count. And yes, you have been here longer than the overwhelming majority of users here. But you have only produced a large handful of edits... hence, I don't know what you are capable of in terms of editing, etc. Jmlk17 00:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

18. Oppose -Per above concerns, sorry! Λua∫Wise ^{(Operibus anteire)} 18:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
19. Oppose -- per blocking policy concerns and the issues raised by Ryan Postlethwaite. Xdenizen (talk) 23:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
20. Oppose due to low edit count and blocking policy concerns above.Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 00:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
21. Oppose: I do not believe that Jouster is ready for adminship nor do I feel comfortable giving a support :( Thedjatclubrock :) ^(T/C) 02:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
22. Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 04:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:SELFNOM, and I've replied at your Talk page. Jouster  (whisper) 08:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, I've read that essay many times, and I still don't buy into it. What's your point? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 16:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    My point largely consisted of what I posted on your Talk page; namely, that my actions are entirely inconsistent with your judgment of my character. Oppose because I smell funny, oppose because you have issues with my degree of involvement in WP:USRD, but opposing me due to suspicon that I am "power-hungry" when even the most cursory examination of my application screams the exact opposite strikes me as disingenuous, at best. As such, I continue to believe that you haven't performed such an examination—instead, I surmise, you noted its status as a self-nom and applied your standard response without additional investigation—and therefore I urge you to reconsider your !vote, or add additonal reasons to oppose my nomination, after having done so. Jouster  (whisper) 20:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This ground of opposition is worthless, and should be completely disregarded. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

23. Oppose "You don't participate at WT:RFA, you can't name the categories of WP:CSD, and you show no appreciation of blocking policy. Why in the world would I trust you with admin tools?" I don't trust you either LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 20:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    If I were to suddenly start blatantly working against the best interest of the site, I'd be instablocked. All admin tools are reversible. Given my current editing rate, I hardly imagine I'd provide a large corpus of reversible material even if I were suddenly to become a blatant vandal. If I'm merely working in a manner with which you disagree, I provide no requirement of good faith for my AOR criteria; the only way I could conceivably ignore your call for my recall would be if I were to acquire a co-conspirator and appoint them as the "reputable third party", which you could then override by getting any of these 1,509 people to agree with you. What damage do you imagine I could possibly cause, exactly, and how extensive do you imagine a recovery effort might be? And, given the context of the age of my account and the fact that I've disclosed my real-life identity, how likely do you truly believe it is that I am the world's most patient sleeper vandal? Hell, you can trivially Google my cell phone number. Please help me understand your opposition. Jouster  (whisper) 20:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

24. Oppose - No, I am sorry, friend. When you say you won't block beyond 60 minutes... that tells me you've never seen another admin block someone else before. I would consider a 60 minute block a "cool down" block, which aren't recommended. Please grab some more experience in other areas and we'll see how you're doing in a few months. Sorry my friend. Scarian^{Call me Pat} 01:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    60 minutes was explicitly chosen because it was similar to a WP:CDB in length; ergo, it would never be longer than a properly-issued block. Any time I blocked, I'd then ask an administrator to extend the block to the appropriate time. Since I'm admitting I don't know the blocking policy, I'm blocking for exactly 60 minutes regardless of offense because that gives another admin familiar with the blocking policy time to review the case and issue a block of appropriate length, without risking "overblocking". And, again, the situations under which I'd block are very, very few to begin with.

    I have read the blocking policy, so I know philosophical issues like the fact that we don't issue punitive blocks or cool-down blocks, for example. But I don't know, and have no interest in memorizing at this time, the set of generally-accepted mappings between types of incidents and block lengths, especially given the fact that there's not an easy-to-reference table (a quick glance at WP:BLOCK seems to confirm that block lengths are an art involving an understanding of consensus and precedent, not something which I could reference on a timescale appropriate to the situations under which I am proposing I might implement a block). Jouster  (whisper) 03:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Jouster, after reading that, if you become an admin I recommend that you don't block at all. Do you notice how inefficient blocking someone for 60 minutes and then finding another admin to extend the block is? There is not another admin on Wikipedia that does that. In addition, you've admitted to not knowing the blocking policy. I honestly don't think you're ready for the tools. My apologies. Scarian^{Call me Pat} 11:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It is less efficient than not blocking, because the admin implementing a new block must remove the old before placing a new—as I understand it, a single additional click. It is spectacularly more efficient, however, because there are far fewer changes by the blocked party that must now be reverted; as mentioned, I would only block in situations where the blockworthy behavior was both immediate and ongoing. Given a high rate of editing on the part of our lately-departed blockworthy party, surely you'd agree that one more click for an administrator is worth the dozens of saved clicks for RC patrollers (or even that same blocking admin going through and cleaning up the mess!).

    Also, to clarify—I have read the blocking policy, and would likely pass a test on it were I given one. I do not, however, know the proper lengths of blocks to assign, largely because I have not found convenient tables with the accepted values, but not insignificantly because I haven't gone looking for them. I offer to block only because there are some situations where even a blind, deaf, mute, asocial, paraplegic zombie would identify someone as likely to cause significant imminent damage to the Encyclopedia, and WP:SNOW does not cover me blocking them in that circumstance. I have no interest in blocking anyone if I can help it, but given the button, I'd find it alarming not to be able to protect the encyclopedia from a plainly-malicious force intent on doing it harm in the next few minutes or less. Anything less than that standard? I'd post at WP:AIV like any other user. Jouster  (whisper) 04:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Jouster, I made that point about not blocking because it'd be a waste of time. Want some guidelines? e.g. IP vandalises after a final warning - (No block log) I would block for 24 hours. Same IP comes back the next day and does the same after coming off of the block I'd slap on a 48 hour block. Do you see how ridiculous the 60 minute block sounds? I don't mean to be rude but it was simply a strong sign of not being ready. I am sorry Jouster, you're a great editor (And I honestly mean that), but you are not ready. I will be willing to coach you in the future though, my friend. If you wish to take me up on this offer feel free to e-mail me. Take care. Scarian^{Call me Pat} 17:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

25. Strong Oppose I can't support because 1)You have admitted to not knowing the blocking policy, 2)Not enough expirience, 3)There is no way to enforce the restrictions you put upon yourself, and 4)60 minute blocks are ineffective in almost every circumstance. You are a very good user and I would be able to support an RFA in the future iff 1)You wait 3 months, 2)You learn the blocking policy, and 3)You don't use restrictions on your use of the tools as an argument for why you should get them Alexfusco⁵ 20:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't understand your impetus behind asserting condition #1, but the rest of the concerns are reasonable, though I obviously disagree. And you win points for "iff", by the way. Thank you for the feedback. Jouster  (whisper) 04:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll strike reason one and the Strong because you mentioned that read the blocking policy. As I said above, You are an excellent user however not ready for admnship at this time. I reccomend an editor review so other users can comment on your edits and give you advice for a future RFA Alexfusco⁵ 22:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

26. Oppose; lack of experience can be cured, but requesting adminship before you took the effort to learn the blocking and deletion policies show a serious lack of understanding about what the position entails. — Coren ^(talk) 21:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not applying to the same position you have in your mind when you hear the word "administrator". Some administrators do nothing but manage DYK and FA. Others spend all their time on Talk pages and mailing lists, improving the processes and policies by which we create this Project. The position doesn't "entail" anything more than a willingness to serve, an account in good standing, and a trusted force at the keys behind that account. I believe I fulfill all three. If you have additional standards, please lay them out plainly that I might aspire to them or reject them outright. Jouster  (whisper) 04:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Simply put, I feel you are seeking adminship as a symbol of recognition (which doesn't reflect on whether or not you are deserving of recognition, I make no judgment on that). What being an administrator is about is a handful of new buttons to deal with the "behind-the-scenes" janitorial work. Deletion, protection, blocking. The only point of adminship is the capacity to perform those actions, and the reason of an RFA is to determine if the community trusts you to use those tools properly.

    Your lack of understanding of those tools mean that, were you to use them, you have a significant probability of misusing them; and if you are not going to use them then there is no need for requesting them. A willingness to serve is most welcome, but improving the process and policies do not require adminship, and having it does not confer one a louder or more credible voice. — Coren ^(talk) 00:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

27. Strong Oppose: Not only is your edit count low, you have harassed users in the past and lied massively. For example, your edit count shows less than 2,000 edits (the bare minimum for admins), yet you claim over 42,000. This is not acceptable for an administrator. George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk^Help 23:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Dendodge, I think you have misunderstood what Jouster wrote. As I take it, he says he did something ( I don't understand what exactly.) to assist two other editors to amass those totals. He did not claim those totals for his own edits. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 02:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I endorse Dlohcierekim's summary, and thank him for clarifying my claim. To address the uncertainties he had, in the case of Noroton, I defused a dispute over List of people from Ridgefield, Connecticut that had him, to say the absolute least, very upset. For Joseph, I feel I was, in great part, responsible for him not being blocked shortly after coming to the Project (though, again, I will cite The Transhumanist, who did yeoman's work). See this post on my Talk page for the final result. Jouster  (whisper) 04:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

28. Oppose I don't like the look of your past history here with regards to other users, and I'm not all that convinced by some of your answers to the optional questions above. Maybe in a thousand or so frictionless edits, but not right now. ☯Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 00:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
29. Oppose Firstly, if all you are interested in is {{editprotected}} and WP:SNOW, there is no need for the tools for that. Drop a line on a sysop's page. Regardless, sysop's have the ability to protect the project through protecting or deleting pages and blocking users or ranges of users. This protection can be misused, and, therefore, should only be extended to people whose judgment can be trusted by the community to be exercised rationally, reasonably, and properly. Of course we all make mistakes and anyone can have a bad day, but someone with a history of being exhibiting incivility when involved in difficult discussions is someone who may be more prone to abuse the tools. Time and learning from one's mistakes heals many things; perhaps a significant stretch of time demonstrating the patience, self-control, and heightened levels of civility required by sysops will change many of these concerns, but now I too must reluctantly oppose. -- Avi (talk) 06:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Your opposition is largely based, then, on what you see as me being incivil? If you would, please provide a diff or two so I may address specific concerns you might have. I stand behind every edit I've made, though I've redacted a fair few when I've realized (or it's been pointed out to me) that I worded them in a manner open to misinterpretation ([4] for a recent example). Please help me become a better Wikipedian by identifying my shortcomings in this regard. Jouster  (whisper) 04:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

30. Per above and per Ryan. Rudget. 10:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
31. Per many of the points made above with regard to editing history and the need for the tools. Eusebeus (talk) 17:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
32. Oppose: Per many of the above points made by users regarding to your edit history... very weak amounts of edits in months, and highly been inactive and also the way that you say in answer to Q1 you are going to do very little with the admin tools, which is not really why editors are promoted to administrator status. With only 1139 total edits and 351 Mainspace edits, there is no way I would be willing to support. The Helpful One ^(Review) 21:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd encourage you to take a look through my edits, though; I do comparatively-little vandalism reversion, but when I do, it's of the kind that no bot could catch[[5] [6] [7]. On the other hand, when I do article work, it's either systemic or minor, with some stuff in between. I'd argue quality of quantity; I don't rack up the numbers of edits per month that others, often using automated tools, might achieve, but I wade into difficult articles (Overstock.com is in an RFAR at the moment) and time-consuming tasks (finding out the mayor of a small town in Arkansas is more difficult than you might imagine).

    Whether or not I'd use the tools is, in my view, entirely orthogonal to the question of whether or not to grant them to me. There is not a marginal cost incurred by granting the tools, one additional row in the database notwithstanding. I ask you, then, to help me understand your reasoning on this point. Jouster  (whisper) 04:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

33. Oppose I do not feel you have any need or use for the tools nor do I feel particularly comfortable endowing you with them either. --Ozgod (talk) 13:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
34. Weak Oppose I am sorry, but I do not feel that you have the experience nescesary for an admin, I am not qiute sure why everyone is so het up over q4 it was in my opinion a chance for Jouster to stste why we should trust him and what he would do, further than before. Harland1 (^t/_c) 14:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)`[reply]

    Q4 was originally written in something of a flippant tone. I was merely trying to lighten the mood, but nearly everyone who read it thought it came off as unprofessional. I thus changed it shortly after the RfA opened ([8] [9]). Jouster  (whisper) 19:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

35. Oppose I personally do not feel that you have enough experience. Also, question four seems nearly WP:POINTy. Not quite, as I certainly wouldn't say that you're being disruptive, but I still get the overall feeling that you're going through a major Wikipedia process just to prove a point. You say yourself that on the whole you would not use the tools, hence you do not need them. Sorry. _TalkIslander 15:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
36. per Q4 and blocking policy. --Kbdank71 21:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
37. Oppose - I love the humour, it's grand, and we all need a bit of that. :-) But Wiki-wise, I feel you don't yet have enough thorough experience and some rather curious remarks in your answer to Q4 raised my eyebrow. Lradrama 15:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Neutral - you seem to be interested in only doing certain specific admin tasks; the sort that we don't need another admin for. Only blocking for up to 60 minutes isn't really helpful to the project, IMO... try again soon with broader intentions. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 17:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Neutral pending answers to my questions above. The pledge to block for no more than 60 minutes makes me feel uncomfortable. Although I firmly believe that we need sysops to perform maintenance tasks as much as we need them to directly help with content creation and improvement, I would also like to see a broader area of tasks to be worked with, not simply edit protecting and working with non-controversial AFD discussions. Mr Senseless (talk) 00:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Neutral. Though the AOR response is extremely welcome and admirable, I feel he is limiting the scope of the proposed admin activities a little too much, particularly because his approach could benefit many more areas than those in which he has said he would be prepared to act as an admin (though this last point is not really a point against, but just a plea for more scope!). In certain cases, a block of greater than 60mins may well be required as well. If these could be addressed so that they were less retrictive, I would be happy to change to support.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Neutral This is the sort of RFA which makes me really wish that there was an admin recall standard. The applicant says that he intends to use admin tools only for very specific purposes, and seems to be qualified to wield them for those purposes. By his own admission, there are far more things that he's not qualified to use the tools for, and he doesn't intend to use them for those things. If sysoping him and then de-sysoping him if he oversteps his competence was an option, I'd be all for it. Unfortunately, it isn't, and while very few admin candidates are capable of properly doing all of the things admins can do (I'm still not), Jouster's just too far short of that standard. Sorry. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   While I recognize that WP:AOR is not absolutely enforceable, I would desperately hope that, given the centrality of it to my candidacy and the simplicity of my recall requirements, a bureaucrat would feel justified in implementing the desysop. I'm willing to make any statement I need to in order to guarantee the implementation of a proper recall under the terms I've set. Jouster  (whisper) 03:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   The trouble is that bureaucrats don't re-sysop; only stewards can do that, and they will only do so if directed to by ArbComm or by the sysop in question, which gives any sysop the full ability to ignore their own recall criteria. This is unfortunate, and it's not your fault, but it's the way it is. I'll mull over switching to positive, though, because I think you probably would be a useful admin and probably would confine yourself to only areas within your competence. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Was the intended term "de-sysop"? Otherwise, I'm a bit lost. Still, thank you for the clarification on that policy; I'll admit that I was under the impression that bureaucrats could grant and remove the sysop bit at will. If there is a form in which I can make my AOR binding, however, I continue to offer to adhere to it. Jouster  (whisper) 04:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I seriously doubt that a steward would fail to desysop a user after they failed an AOR recall if the community thought that the recall had been implemented correctly, but for some reason the administrator refused to resign. Yes, only stewards can desysop, but they'd likely take the advice of bureaucrats as to whether to do so or not; stewards aren't supposed to make the decision themselves, but instead just implement decisions made by the community. --ais523 20:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

5. Neutral I'm a bit worried about how you have expressed unfamiliarity with CSD and how you feel that you won't block anyone beyond 1 hour or so. I feel that you are almost looking for a "part-time" adminship. I appreciate your enthusiasm to help out, but I'm afraid to say that it would almost create more work if you were promoted to admin. It will be too difficult and time consuming for you to hunt down another admin to extend a block. Another thing is that, although admins might not express it to you, I can guarantee that eventually we will grow tired of you trying to ask for advice and "holding your hand" through the process of blocks and almost every other aspect of adminship. I'm very sorry if this message comes off as negative, I just want you to be aware of the negative things you will encounter if you were to be promoted. If you are willing to work up on your knowledge on admin material, and show that you can work independently for the most routine of things, than I would gladly support you next time! Cheers, Icestorm815 • Talk 20:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I will not be asking for hand-holding, nor will I be hunting down administrators to extend my blocks. I will post on WP:AIV after blocking someone, noting that I made a short block, and providing whatever evidence I have acquired. An administrator can then, at their leisure, implement a longer block. Compared to the alternative—that I, as a user, post to WP:AIV—this approach actually saves the administrator time in two ways: they need not spend as much time gathering evidence, as I will provide it along with my AIV post, and they need not clean up as much damage, as the user will have been blocked while they researched the case. Even then, given the rarity with which I expect to block (see my answer to question #6), I do not imagine this will become an issue.

   As to "hand-holding", I will not be whining on other administrators' Talk pages, begging for information on how to handle a situation. If the situation is outside of my ability to handle, I will refer it to A{N,NI,IV}, as would any other user. The Project is no worse off for having me as an administrator in that circumstance, as it's the same thing I'd do were I a user without the bit. If, on the other hand, I can handle it, then I would do so. The net amount of work performed by the average administrator, discounting my own effort, is therefore reduced should I acquire the bit.

   I hope that explains my position succinctly and clearly. If it does not, please let me know and I will happily modify it accordingly. Jouster  (whisper) 04:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

6. Neutral to avoid pile-on the oppose OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Moving to neutral While I still believe the user needs more experience, I look forward to supporting in a future RfA when that experience is gained. Dlohcierekim 15:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. I'm afraid I can't actually support this RfA, as per some of my standards. You're a decent enough editor, which is why I can't bring myself to Oppose, but you're not active enough for me to Support. I understand your "net benefit" statement (and it is rather compelling), but it's only a net benefit if you have the experience to help the project; I'm not convinced that you do, and the "I'll never block for more than 60 minutes" is worrisome. Basically, your answer to Question 4 makes me think that any net benefit of your adminship (helping with edit requests, etc) will be negated by the additional level of hand-holding required for more than the most rudimentary admin action. I'm sorry, but that's not what we need. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:17, 4 March 2008 (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.