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

Final (78/0/1); Closed as successful by –xeno^talk at 22:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Jujutacular (talk · contribs) – Ladies and gentlemen of the jury: it is my honor to present to you Jujutacular to be considered for the English Wikipedia's administrative permissions. Jujutacular has been a regular editor for the past year. He has made well over 8,000 individual contributions, including extensive work in both the article and Wikipedia namespace. My first interaction with 'Juju' was some eight or nine months ago. I was immediately struck by his levelheadedness and his familiarity with the project, and so have kept a lazy eye on him since. My casual stalking has turned up nothing but positive interactions. Jujutacular is an active reviewer for featured list candidates and featured picture candidates (including picture peer reviews). He has patrolled over 850 pages and seems very familiar with both speedy deletion criteria (see deleted contributions) and articles for deletion discussions (see AfD participation). In addition, Jujutacular has produced 2 featured lists, 1 good article, 15 did you know's, 3 featured sounds, and 11 featured pictures. More importantly, however, Jujutacular is a civil, happy, honest, and even-keeled Wikipedian. I encourage the participants here to take a look through his talk page archives as an example of his modesty. When he makes mistakes he admits to them and learns from them. In just one year's time, Jujutacular has become an impressively experienced editor, but as far as adminship is concerned, his pleasant character is his most important and outstanding attribute. I sincerely believe that this humble editor would be an ideal to addition to Wikipedia's administrative team. Best regards to all, and thank you for your time. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Thank you Arbit, for the kind words. I accept. Jujutacular ^T · C 21:54, 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: I feel that I will primarily be useful in closing AFD discussions and dealing with speedy deletion requests. I have been involved with both over the course of the past year. I believe that I can accurately determine consensus at AFD discussions, and determine whether CSD criterion applies to any given article. I may branch out to other areas, and I feel that I have the breadth of experience necessary to do so responsibly. I would of course approach any admin area I am unfamiliar with as a cautious newcomer.

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

A: I believe that my best contributions fall under two areas: mainspace contributions and helpfulness to newcomers. As a content editor, the majority of my edits have been gnomish, making small changes that help keep this place clean. I also have a modest amount of reviewed work that Arbit outlined above. As for being helpful to newcomers, I feel that this is especially important to the longevity of this project. I have always made this one of my goals, and I believe that I've been successful at it the majority of the time. I try to always remember my first edits in any area to gain perspective on what newcomers may be facing.

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: As with every editor, after spending a while here I have run into situations that get stressful as disagreements arise. Whenever these conflicts have arisen for me, I have made sure to not let my emotions control my actions. If I find myself too stressed to do this, I simply take a small break. If entrusted with the mop, I will continue to abide by this personal policy.

I'd also like to note that I am quick to accept my mistakes and learn from them. Humility is key.

Addition question from WFC

4. Under what circumstances would you accept and decline a CSD G5 request?

A: If I found a CSD G5 request (creations by (a) banned or blocked user(s)), I would check first to ensure substantial edits have not been made by others. If so, I would decline the request and leave a note explaining why. If not, I would evaluate the details of the creator. If I confirm that the creator is not banned or blocked, or that the created page is not in violation of their ban or block, I would decline the request and leave a note explaining why. Finally, if I came to the conclusion that the page was indeed in violation of their ban or block, I would accept the request and delete the page. If during any of these steps I had reasonable doubt about these details, I would defer to other administrators.

Additional optional question from Richwales

5. You seem to have a very small number of article talk space edits. Some people would feel that collaboration with other editors in content creation is important for an admin, no matter what sort of mop work they plan to do. What would you say about this?

A: Indeed, I do not have a great number of edits to the article talk space. I do, however, feel that I have substantial enough experience and appreciation for the collaborative content-creation process that it would not hinder me as an admin. In the process of reviewing a number of featured list nominations, I have had to discuss the merit of various details in the article space (e.g. 1 2 3 4 5). I have also done a few reviews at WP:PR.

Additional optional question from DGG ( talk )

6 Can you give us some examples of instance where you have made a special effort to counsel newcomers? DGG ( talk ) 08:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A: Sure. Here and here I helped out User:Ijmusic (Isaiah Jackson), a professor at the Berklee College of Music who assigns Wikipedia work to his students (classical music is an area where we could use help in). Here I assisted an editor with a conflict of interest NPOVify an article and demonstrate notability. Here I helped a self-identified "cyber-phobic" newcomer learn how to edit his signature. He was quite alarmed when he made my talk page look like this, but we managed to finally sort it out. Here I helped out a newcomer to FLC after some discouraging experience and a long nomination. The nomination eventually passed and the editor has gone on to complete 3 more featured lists, with a featured topic in the works.

Additional optional question from SoWhy

7. It seems that you have almost stopped tagging articles for speedy deletion in the last months. Any reason why?

A: A very real aspect of maintenance-type work is that it is easy to get into a rut. I am of the firm opinion that it is important to cycle through various areas of the project in order to stay fresh and maintain perspective. Personally, if I were to only work in speedy deletion tagging I would eventually lose the thoughtfulness about each tag that I had at the beginning. I will certainly return to a higher volume of work in that area in the near future, whether I become an admin or not. That said, I feel that I have adequately maintained a level of familiarity with the process that I can be entrusted with the mop.

Additional optional question from Richwales

8. Could you give us some more specific examples of how you have worked with other editors, to help us better judge your interpersonal skills? This might include, in particular, one or two specific situations which have involved conflict or have otherwise been stressful.

A: Browsing my user talk archives would probably be the best way to evaluate my interpersonal skills (I don't mean to cherry-pick them), but I can list some more specific examples if you'd like: 1 2 3 4. As for discussions causing stress, the example that comes to mind is this one.

Additional question from MichaelQSchmidt

9a. As you wish to close AFDs, could explain your reasoning about THIS AFD nomination that seems to show lack of WP:BEFORE?

A: I performed sorting for that nomination but I am not the nominator. I have taken the liberty of placing the {{unsigned}} template for the nominator, sorry for the confusion.

9b And how might you address such concerns at AFDs you choose to close?

A: If I close an AFD where some basic WP:BEFORE work would've eliminated the need for a nomination, I would most likely leave a note on the nominator's talk page. The note would encourage the nominator to do some ground work on articles before taking them to AFD in a courteous but serious fashion.

9c Does a closer have a duty to do any research into claims about sources that might be made at AFDs, or must he rely only upon consensus?

A: I do believe that a closer should verify the claims about sources made during AFDs to the best of their ability and resources. A closer that relies on the !voters that rely on the other !voters that rely on the nominator – does not make for good accountability.

Additional question from MichaelQSchmidt

10. User:J04n comented at your October 2009 editor review that "You are a remarkably proficient editor for someone with only four months of experience. I am particularly impressed by the diversity of edits that you made on your first day of editing. Did you have an account before this one?"[1] I did not see an answer there. So have you had accounts before this one?

A: In short, I did not have an account before this one. I did give a response on J04n's talk page which can now be found here. To expand on that response: I made a handful of edits (<20) before creating an account as an IP, I believe all in the article space. I discovered maintenance templates and Special:Newpages and decided to create an account. I do have a bit of experience in programming and so the wiki-syntax we often take for granted was not too difficult to pick up. That said, I have made my fair share of mistakes :)

Additional optional question from Jayjg

11. 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: To name three: The Salon (comics), Danmono, and Big White Fog. I would also say that I am primary author of the majority of the articles listed in the "work" section of my userpage.

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

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

• Edit stats posted on the talk page. Airplaneman ✈ 22:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Support - looks good to me, some nice contributions and a generally sensible editor. Decent admin material. ~ mazca ^talk 22:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. My only interaction with the candidate was when I questioned a non-admin closure he or she performed. The closure was re-visited (and self-reverted) without me even explicitly asking. So clearly he or she is not just willing to admit mistakes (as stated in the nomination above), but is receptive to community concerns even when a mistake might not have been made. So that makes me very comfortable to support, in addition to the wide range of competent contributions in a variety of areas across the project.--Mkativerata (talk) 22:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support as nominator - Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Know of the candidate's strengths and think them a rather good candidate. Definitely has the sense desirable in a good administrator and is also - as demonstrated above - accountable. So support for a net positive. ceranthor 22:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support—yes. Airplaneman ✈ 22:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support Wish every admin candidate had this level of content creation! Jclemens (talk) 22:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support Satisfies my main RFA criterion  Begoon^talk 23:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support No concerns so far. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support. Capable, experienced editor. No reason to think they wouldn't do a good job. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Upgrading to strong support per a perfect {{db-attack}} tagging I came across a few minutes ago that had waited far too long to be put out of its misery. Giving this editor the ability to zap that kind of shite himself seems a very sensible thing to do. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

10. Experienced editor, I don't see why not. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 02:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support I've seen his work at FLC, and am confident that he will make a good admin. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support – No problems with me. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 02:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support - great answers, good work, great personality on talk page. PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 03:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support Good experiences with candidate at FPC: was rational, friendly, civil, and always added to the discussion. Spencer^T♦C 03:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support Well-rounded editor. BejinhanTalk 04:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support. A well-mannered editor with decent content contributions and good reviewing skills. I don't usually support people who've been here less than 18 months, but the candidate seems to know his/her way around already. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support Jmlk17 08:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support Why not? Can not see any reason not to trust him. IQinn (talk) 09:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support. Looks like a very good community-oriented editor to me, and should make a great admin. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support I see nothing wrong at first glance. No reason to oppose.--White Shadows ^{It's a wonderful life} 15:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support Seems to have a clue in the areas they want to work in and has a nice track record. I couldn't find anything concerning in the last few months I reviewed. Regards SoWhy 15:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support Certainly good enough for adminship. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 16:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support Seems to do a good job, no concerns. --Leyo 17:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support as I deem them to be a good admin candidate. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 18:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support, everything looks good. Nsk92 (talk) 19:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support No reason to oppose  Francium12  19:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support. Satisfied with his people skills after reading his additional answers. Good luck with the mop. Richwales (talk · contribs · review) 22:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support Experienced and, based on their questions, they seem sensible, reasonable and level headed. Very satisfying candidate. Also, wow, Arb really knows how to write a nomination. Swarm^Talk 03:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support. Trustworthy and experienced editor. The wisdom in the answer to question #7 impressed me. -- œ^™ 03:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support Experienced, and no reasons to oppose. Coasterlover1994^{Leave your mark!} 05:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support indeed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
32. support yeah Tommy! [message] 11:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support; not a regular at RfA, but Juju's worth supporting. J Milburn (talk) 11:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support per answers to my questions above (9&10), with my thanks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 13:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support. Great candidate. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 14:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
36. Juliancolton (talk) 14:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
37. Featured work and reviewing isn't required but it's a big plus, and spot check of CSD work looks fine. - Dank (push to talk) 15:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support should be a net positive. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support I've had really good interactions with this user over at WP:FLC, where he reviewed 3 or 4 of my lists. I'm sure he's worthy of this, and will do a good job.--GrapedApe (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support Clearing doing excellent work here, and appears responsible. DGG ( talk ) 17:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
41. --Connormah^talk 18:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
42. Yes, pleaseeeeeeeee. —fetch·comms 20:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support I see no issues. Doc Quintana (talk) 23:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support I'm sure Jujutacular will make a fine admin. -- Marek.69 ^talk 00:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support Candidate appears to possess an extraordinary level of gorm. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 01:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
46. Absolutely. T. Canens (talk) 03:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support - I see no problems here. Mlpearc powwow 03:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
48. Supprt. See no reason to think candidate will abuse the tools. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support - looks good --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 08:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support No qualms, and I particularly like the answers to 9b/c. --j⚛e decker^talk 18:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support. No concerns here. Good lcuk with the mop! Laurinavicius (talk) 22:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support I was impressed when I did an editor review on Jujutacular and even more impressed now. I am very happy to support. J04n(talk page) 22:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support. Cerebral answers; experienced; well rounded--Hokeman (talk) 01:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Support.This user seems very experienced and would make a very good administrator.Pr€mi€r~$h@wn (talk) 02:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

54. Support No issues here! MurfleMan (talk) 04:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support Convincing record and I only had positive encounters with him. --Elekhh (talk) 05:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
56. Excellent contributor, will no doubt make a good admin. Jafeluv (talk) 07:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
57. Should be no problems here, user has a good mix of contributions and should make a fine admin. BigDom 09:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support - a fine set of contributions there, my man! :) Orphan Wiki 17:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support - Sure, why not? I don't see any real concerns with this user. Reyk _YO! 19:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 08:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support Really good editor, I see no reason why he shoudn't be an admin. Well deserved. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 09:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
62. Strong Support A great candidate. - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support. Great at FLC; excellent all round. Tony (talk) 11:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support User does good work at FLC. Courcelles (talk) 13:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
65. Support Quite impressive. GlassCobra 15:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support as newbie he has helped Just today he gave me advice after first fixing a problem [2] in my first AfD submission. By both fixing right away and explaining, he kept the project on track and made me feel like a valued member of the community. I will definitely try to follow his example as I become less of a newbie and have occasion to help Wikipedians newer than I am. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 19:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
67. Support - what more's left to say? -- Jack?! 21:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
68. Support Everyone is supporting. Why not? Jujutacular is a great user. ActivExpression^Talk_Guestbook 00:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
69. Support What I've seen of Jujutacular (and believe me, that is a name that stands out, tell me how you landed with that one day) doesn't raise any red flags. – B.hotep •talk• 21:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
70. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
71. Support: Experienced in gnomish work.--Forty two^{Thanks for all the fish!} 02:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
72. Support Ready for a mop. Allmightyduck  What did I do wrong? 04:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
73. Support - Looks like another good mopper is on the way. I have not run into Juju in the areas I edit in, but the unanimous support is impressive, as are the answers and overall bearing. Best wishes to you in the days ahead! Jusdafax 05:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
74. Strong support I don't normally pile on with my support !vote. But content contribution is strong, AfD approach is common-sensical (for instance NCAA history), civility is a plus, and the FLC contributions I've come across (how do I not remember you?) show both general technical knowledge and an ability to provide constructive feedback. I asked a question about one of the CSD criteria, and was very impressed with the answer there as well. A model RfA candidate. --WFC-- 06:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
75.  Support Ya. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 07:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
76. Support No problems that I can see. Reach Out to the Truth 16:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
77. Support - No concerns. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 20:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
78. Support – Happy to pile on here. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

#Oppose Nobody can properly respond to people whose articles have been deleted and give them appropriate advice and--sometimes-- sympathy, who does not have experience in writing articles. I've supported people here without significant content work if they intend to work in other areas, but certainly not CSD and AfD. DGG ( talk ) 08:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So two FLs, one GA and fifteen DYK articles is "no experience in writing articles"? What would you consider the appropriate experience? Jafeluv (talk) 09:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

placed by accident on the wrong Request; my apologies for the confusion. DGG ( talk ) 15:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Neutral - it would be ideal if the article Danmono cites sources from a different author to ensure NPOV. Kayau Voting IS evil 08:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Not to badger (and I realize that this is neutral), but I'd like to ask - how this makes him unsuitable for adminship? Candidates don't always need to be picture-perfect - we all have a slip here and there. Connormah^talk 05:36, 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.