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

Final (161/1/2); Closed as successful by WjBscribe at 10:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jbmurray (talk · contribs) - It is rare that you stumble across somebody that gets you as excited as Jbmurray. Jb is an assistant professor in Latin American Studies at the University of British Columbia. Now generally one's academic credentials are irrelevant at an RfA, but with Jb, they are crucial. Jb has incorporated his profession with Wikipedia in a new and novel way. In the Spring of 2008, Jb taught a course Murder, Madness, and Mayhem which part of class' requirements were to develop featured content on Wikipedia. To this end he established a wikiproject. He has written two essays on the subject "Was Introducing Wikipedia to the Classroom an Act of Madness Leading Only to Mayhem if not Murder?" and "Advice on Using Wikipedia in Colleges and Universities" JB is also part of the FA-Team working towards creating Feature Content on Wikipedia.

JB's editing philosophy is, "when someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit if you can, rather than reverting it." In short, a good faith edit, even when it itself is wrong, almost always indicates a problem with the original text, which has therefore to be improved one way or another. In reading his talk page, you get the sense of a person who is trusted by the community and valued for her contributions. He is always civil and has the best interest of the project at heart.

Having reviewed his contributions to the project, I am left convinced that Jb is a prime candidate. He may not use the tools a lot, but I have no doubt that we can trust him only to use the tools properly and only to improve the project. Jb is routinely sought out for his help---which is what being an admin is all about.Balloonman (talk) 07:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nom I first encountered Jbmurray (who began editing in May 2007) through the FA-Team's work with him and the Murder, Madness and Mayhem Project on three featured articles—El Señor Presidente, The General in His Labyrinth and Mario Vargas Llosa. I was leery at first, as I half expected him and his students to take their FAs and run, leaving a mess of unuseful articles and deletions similar to one recently desribed at ANI :-) In one year, Jbmurray has accumulated a breadth and depth of experience on Wiki that is astonishing. In addition to establishing a successful WikiProject and managing the needs and experiences of his students with sometimes difficult interaction with other Wiki editors, while producing 3 FAs and 8 GAs, Jbmurray has become a helpful, thorough and knowledgeable reviewer at WP:FAC, WP:FAR, WP:GA and WP:GAR, as well as a regular contributor and copyeditor at the Featured Content Dispatch Workshop producing Dispatches for the Signpost. I observed several times during the writing of the FAs how he skillfully negotiated difficult patches and worked to avoid conflicts among a large group of students and many different editors. Recently, I observed him finessing a difficult situation when he was asked to copyedit a FAC-bound article for an editor who did not fully appreciate the help and advice he offered. I've also observed that he's handled himself very well on several difficult and conflicted FACs, and in tricky editing situations while he and his students had numerous FACs and GANs cooking simultaneously. It is rare to encounter an editor who brings to Wiki excellent conflict management and dispute resolution skills combined with knowledge of policy, organizational skills, talented writing and copyediting, content knowledge, diplomacy and Spanish as a bonus. Don't let this one get away ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Many thanks. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 10:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recognize that adminship is "no big deal." But at the same time, I have always appreciated, especially when I first ventured onto Wikipedia, the presence of admins who could guide me and offer advice and counsel as I was fumbling around, trying to figure out the ways of this amazing but intricate community. They probably remember nothing about these interactions now, but admins such as Kafziel, Gadfium, and Heimstern really helped me find my feet here a year or so ago. And it was grand to know I could turn to them as more experienced Wikipedians, in whom the community had put the trust of adminship, and they could at least point me in the right direction with whatever queries I had. NB I say this even though (or perhaps also because) at one point Heimstern blocked me! But that was part of the learning experience, too.

And although I can't say I know the full ins and outs of the encylopedia now, not by a long shot, I'd like to be able to offer help to others in a similar way, and to use the various tools of adminship when necessary.

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: My contributions to Wikipedia have been focussed in two areas: adding content, and reviewing articles that aim to be among the best that Wikipedia can offer, at both WP:GAN and WP:FAC, as well as WP:GAR and WP:FAR. I don't expect that pattern to change much. Also, as Balloonman has noted, I helped shepherd a bunch of new Wikipedians (known offline as my students!) as they worked on bringing twelve articles towards Good article and Featured status. I plan to repeat a similar project in the (Northern Hemisphere) Fall. In the course of these self-assigned tasks, there have been various points at which admin tools would have been useful: occasionally blocking vandals, for instance, and deleting pages. And admin tools are fairly often required to help the Featured Article director's delegate and others who are involved in the review processes. I don't pretend that I will be using the admin tools a great deal. As I say above, I expect to be more of a generalist, offering whatever advice I can to those who are aiming to help contribute to the marvellous store of knowledge that is Wikipedia. But when I can help out as an admin, I would be more than happy to do so.

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

A: The obvious thing to point to is Murder, Madness, and Mayhem's contribution of three featured articles and eight good articles. There, however, I'm less proud of my own contributions than of what my students managed to do, and I feel also an immense gratitude to the many, many fellow Wikipedians, above all in the FA-Team, who made that achievement possible. I'm pleased that we managed to broaden the range of Wikipedia's featured content, and to improve the encyclopedia's coverage of Latin American issues. But I'm also glad to contribute to fairly low-key copy-editing on a whole range of articles, hopefully helping out editors as they try to shepherd their work through what can sometimes be the gruelling process of Wikipedia's quality control. In the past few hours, for instance, I've been copy-editing articles as diverse as Aerosmith (which has been at WP:GAR), Homer's Triple Bypass (also at WP:GAR), Preity Zinta (which is at WP:FAC), and Tom Brinkman (which just failed WP:FAR). And perhaps the award that most tickled me was my Content Review Medal of Merit. Oh, and the M&Ms!

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: Oh, yes. I think conflicts are inevitable on Wikipedia. A year or so ago, I was even blocked (as I mentioned above), for breaking the three revert rule. In my defence, I'd say that the other editor with whom I was involved in that dispute, was blocked for a month! But that was a salutary experience, and one thing I learned, I think, was that you're much more likely to avoid such conflicts if you're actually adding new content. So I haven't shied away from controversial topics: still last year, I spent quite a lot of time editing Red Terror (Spain) (to which I just returned in a fit of nostalgia), and more recently I've put some time into Che Guevara. Despite the fact that these are both "hot topics," I think that by stressing good sourcing, an editor can mostly avoid getting tied up in ideological disputes.

At the same time, as I copy-edit articles I'm often quite bold in my changes: as my user page states, I try to adhere to a zero-revert BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, though admit that I don't always manage to do so. And I'm also aware that it's inevitable that people become attached to the prose that they've added, and sometime react with disappointment at the changes that I introduce. A current example would be The Accidental, an article that's been up for WP:GAN, where I made a whole series of changes, which were then almost entirely reverted, in my opinion (of course!) undoing a whole lot of progress. But rather than reverting back, I took some of the issues to the talk page, where the other editor and I are (rather slowly) going through the problems that I tried to identify. Meanwhile, as this has been a rather drawn-out process, I added a whole new section, with some pretty good secondary sources.

Another recent instance of a conflict I've been involved in can be traced in part on the talk page of Dirty Dancing. I'll let other editors judge how I dealt with that conflict, but again mostly I aimed to avoid reverts, and to take my concerns to the talk page.

I recognize also that I have fairly high standards, and that often also leads to conflict. But I'm more than happy to invite other, more experienced, editors to take a look at a particular issue, and to take their advice and adjust my stance accordingly. For an example of this, see the current GAR for Skin & Bone.

In short (and I feel I may have gone on too long for some in answer to this question, or perhaps too short for the taste of others; I'd be happy to expand if necessary during the RfA discussion), yes, I have certainly been in conflicts, and I am sure I will be in conflicts again, especially given my involvement in review processes where editors have brought their much-prized work for judgement, and are apt (very understandably) to be disappointed if things don't go as swimmingly as they had anticipated. But I believe in talking through these conflicts, and although there are certain general principles that I hold dear (not least the importance of thorough research and good sources), I'm always open to persuasion on particular issues. --08:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Optional question from Franamax

4. What is your understanding of IAR? Do you think that IAR should apply to admin actions? (and feel free to discuss at length :)

Thanks for the question, and for the invitation to discuss at length! In the first place, I'd stress the interpretation of WP:IAR that reminds us that "You can contribute to Wikipedia without needing to know what the rules are". Especially as I was helping to shepherd a bunch of absolute WP newbies through the process that would eventually lead them (and us) through to a place on the main page, we were constantly aware of the numerous rules and guidelines that we didn't yet fully understand. And we were equally aware that (as Donald Rumsfeld might put it ;) ) as well as these "known unknowns" there were no doubt a whole series of "unknown unknowns": rules that we couldn't even imagine. But the point is to get beyond that hurdle, to try to add content in good faith, and to trust that, because this is a wiki, even the worst errors and mistakes can be overturned and fixed. So to that extent I actively encouraged my students to ignore the rules: to go ahead, and do their best.

The other side of this, of course, is that as more experienced editors, and even as admins, we can't be sticklers for the rules if we see that other editors are genuinely (as we assume!) acting in good faith. So admins should definitely be encouraged to ignore all rules if doing so is good for the encyclopedia, and helps create a welcoming atmosphere in which people are encouraged to contribute and perhaps even to join the project. We need to put ourselves in the position of newbies, who are like it or not ignorant of the rules, and especially as admins show patience rather than frustration.

At the same time, we should also expect that editors are seeking to work with the community, rather than to disrupt it. If editors persist in ignoring rules to the detriment of the encyclopedia, then those rules should be enforced, albeit again with as much patience and understanding as possible.

In the second place, I understand WP:IAR in the light of the fact that consensus is always subject to change. Wikipedia is always in process, and is endlessly evolving. Today's rules are unlikely to be tomorrow's, at least not in every respect. And we are encouraged therefore to think outside of the box, to consider new ways of doing things. Again, that's also part of the mantra that we're encouraged to be bold. That might mean breaking some rules to attempt to establish a new consensus, or to move a debate forwards. In that respect, and in so far as admins are (however informally) often viewed with particular respect, as individuals in whom the community has put its trust, then perhaps they have a special responsibility to think imaginatively and to shine new light on old issues. Speaking personally, I'm keen to think about new ways of doing things, and frequently muse openly about such ideas as I'm reviewing at WP:FAC and elsewhere. Just to take on example, I've started to take an interest in articles about films, and so, after leaving a note on the talk page, made a fairly bold edit at WP:MOSFILM. This got reverted, but precisely because only a bold edit attracted attention, it has kickstarted what I think is a useful discussion about what's required of film articles on Wikipedia, with (I hope) fairly fundamental implications.

In short, admins need to take special care to remember that newbies are by their very nature ignorant of the rules. And admins also have what is almost a moral responsibility to be involved in rethinking the ways in which Wikipedia conducts itself, and so if necessary to leave the old rules behind.

Truly optional question from iridescent (if you don't want to answer, you have my express consent to remove this question)

5. Are your students still editing Wikipedia? If so, assuming you pass this RFA will you be willing to either disclose all their usernames and/or recuse yourself from any admin actions in relation to any of their contributions? (I appreciate there's a slight degree of ABF here, but we all know certain people will be more than happy to jump up and down shouting "COI!") — iridescent 15:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question amended as Wikipedia:MMM#Members has been pointed out to me. — iridescent 18:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A:Those students generally aren't still editing, though I think a couple of them may come back to edit at some point. In any case, the question still arises because I do intend to repeat the project, or rather do something very similar, next semester.

As per your correction, yes, I disclose the student usernames. As for the conflict of interest... heh, I wonder which way you think it goes?!  ;) Some students always feel that the professor has it in for them; but I suspect you're suggesting that I would be too favourably inclined towards them. I think a more important conflict of interest would be if a student (or students) were to receive long-term blocks at the time of an active class assignment. I very much doubt that would happen (none of the students this past semester came even close; they were models of civility etc.), but in such a case I would have to intervene in one way or another.

So I'm not sure about hard and fast rules. There may also be times where having "the mop and bucket" would allow me to do some useful clean-up for a student-related project, without having to bother another admin. Above all, the important point is to be completely transparent.

Optional question from LessHeard vanU

6. Do you agree that communication is vital in performing the roles of administrator, and therefore are you going to set your preferences so you are forced to create an edit summary?

A: Hi. Yes, I absolutely agree that communication is vital. And I use edit summaries often as a mode of communication, so sometimes these summaries can get quite wordy. I don't always use edit summaries when editing either a) my own user page and its subpages (such as the most recent essay I'm writing) or b) the project page for Murder, Madness and Mayhem. As I've made quite a lot of edits both to my user space (especially in writing up essays) and to WP:MMM, it may seem that I have a fairly high proportion of edits without summaries. But looking quickly at my last five hundred contributions, I can only see two instances where I didn't use edit summaries when I was working on pages outside of my own user space or WP:MMM, and in both cases this was when working on a draft version of a signpost article, with other members of the Featured Content Dispatch Workshop: here and here. I guess the second of those could probably have done with a summary, to help out my co-writers, but you can judge for yourself by looking at the whole chain of edit summaries.

So, I don't see any pressing need to change my practice, but am open to comments and ideas. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your honesty - and I am going to support anyhow, but on a slightly different basis - but would suggest that forcing yourself to make a summary means you will not forget that one important time that you might. In the other instances, a single letter summary will not hold you up or interrupt your train of thought - and might even be a useful reminder if it is a item you intend to return to later. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I wish I had set up a system of labelling my edits in someway via the edit summaries. Would make it so much easier to filter the edits later and find the useful ones. Er, though they are all useful of course! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 04:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very true; at times I've learned this the hard way, as I try to comb back through pages of edit summaries to look for when particular content was added. Of course, the thing is also that summaries perform a variety of different functions: communicating to other editors in the present (and so becoming a form of dialogue) as well as marking a historical record; for this edit I'm going more the former route ;) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Noble Story

7. Is there any particular reason why you had only 30 edits from July to December of last year, and is there any reason to expect a prolonged absence again?

A: For a good chunk of that time, I was mostly in Peru (and also El Salvador, Bolivia, Chile, Uruguay, and Argentina). It's an occupational hazard.  ;) Unfortunately, I doubt I'll have such a prolonged absence again in the foreseeable future. But yes, there will be other such absences. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 16:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

8. Do you think that the numerous Wikipedia rules and regulations...ahem, policies and guidelines, are too complicated for a new user. Also, do you think that it turns off some new users, because they get warned or blocked because of rules they don't know about?

A: They are complicated, and in some cases they certainly do turn new users off, who find themselves inadvertently clashing with the Wikipedia way of doing things. NB, the issue isn't always the rules and regulations, bu the Wikipedia culture and (unspoken) conventions. I think this explains in part, for instance, why the encounter between Wikipedia and Academia is so often disappointing. As I recently discussed, the swathe of students uploading their essays to the encyclopedia a couple of weeks ago were doing so in good faith, but soon came up against a barrage of guidelines and rules that made surely for disappointment on their part, and aggravation for Wikipedians. I doubt many of those students will be coming back any time soon. I'm hoping to spread the word that things needn't be that way, and to do my bit to ensure that future educational projects prove happier and more productive experiences for all involved.

But in another context, I'm also trying to encourage a series of otherwise tech-savvy individuals to contribute to the encyclopedia. (This is hopefully a domino project: it's a matter of teaching technologists to teach teachers to teach students... "widening the footprint" in a phrase I've seen SandyGeorgia use.) But they too, I've seen, have found themselves initially intimidated and confused by the experience of starting out on Wikipedia.

The solution isn't to reduce the number of policies and guidelines (though that's not to say that there couldn't be some simplification or rationalization in particular areas; and if anything there are too many help pages). They're there for a purpose, are usually the result of long thought and debate, and generally function pretty well. But as I say above, it's encumbent on all of us, but perhaps especially admins (who would be the ones doing the blocking if there's blocking to be done, after all) to put ourselves imaginatively in the place of these users who are, literally, ignorant of almost all the rules. On the whole, I've found Wikipedia an amazingly welcoming community, full of astonishingly generous people who have gone well out of their way to help guide me (and others) through what at first appears to be this site's rather intricate maze of regulations and conventions. I'm constantly blown away by this generosity and good will.

At the same time, newbies do get bitten, even when we don't realize that we're biting them. There are lots of opportunities for disappointment, and I've experienced plenty of that in my time: most recently perhaps when I enthusiastically tried to upload some images and even put one up for Featured picture candidacy. I got slapped with a bunch of templates because I hadn't got the copyright permissions right, and then pretty soon the folk at WP:FPC told me in no uncertain terms that my picture wasn't up to scratch. What was worse was that, as per my answer to your previous question, sadly I'm not about to be back in El Salvador to try again, and unlike an article (where I could always copy-edit or find better sources or whatever) there's not much I can do to improve my effort at present. I'll admit that at first I felt somewhat bitten as I ran into a range of the "unknown unknowns" I mention above: rules I didn't even know exist, technical terms ("posterization"?!) that were completely new to me. But it was a learning experience, and I appreciated especially in that context Diliff's encouraging words.

So in short, yes, it can feel rather bewildering, and yet everyone who's reading this has probably forgotten to some extent how intimidating it was to venture onto Wikipedia at first. Let's simplify and rationalize the rules where that's possible, but above all strive to carry on assuming good faith.

Looking back over my answer now, I fear I've come over all kumbaya and Pollyanna-ish. And I recognize that some who've been on the other side of my sometimes tough standards at WP:FAC or WP:GAN may be surprised.  ;) But heck, why not? Wikipedia can have high standards--and that's what all those guidelines are about, in the end--and also be an immense collaborative enterprise at the same time. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 16:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Optional Questions from KojiDude

9. What is the general goal of Wikipedia?

A: Ah, the small questions... ;) I figured that to answer this I might as well consult Wikipedia itself; perhaps surprisingly, there's no section explicitly on "goals" at Wikipedia:About. Perhaps that's because Wikipedia's goals are always moving: it's a process as much as a product. That, after all, is one thing that makes it different from previous, print encyclopedias. (Yes, I know that our German friends have just produced a print version, but still...) Meanwhile, still consulting Wikipedia itself, we might suggest that the encyclopedia's purpose is

to collect knowledge disseminated around the globe; to set forth its general system to the men with whom we live, and transmit it to those who will come after us, so that the work of preceding centuries will not become useless to the centuries to come; and so that our offspring, becoming better instructed, will at the same time become more virtuous and happy, and that we should not die without having rendered a service to the human race.

More basically, our goal is to try to collect, sort, and explain some of the ever-increasing amount of information about the ever-increasing amount of stuff that surrounds us in contemporary society, as well as about the historical stuff that also goes to making us what we are.

10. Do you think that, as an administrator, you will be able to help Wikipedia reach that goal? Why or why not?

A: Yes, though I should clarify: first, as per my previous answer, that I don't think Wikipedia ever will (or ever will want to) reach its goal; and second, that I don't have to be an administrator to help further Wikipedia's purpose. It is one of the joys of the project that anyone can, and so many do, contribute in such a variety of ways.

Another optional question from Noble Story

11. What do you think your biggest weakness as a Wikipedian is? <sarcasm>If nothing else will stop your popularity, then this will.</sarcasm>

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

• Links for Jbmurray: Jbmurray (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/Jbmurray before commenting.

1. Comment - Is it possible for an RfA to be closed early and the nominee reviewed by a bureaucrat? This is a pretty much secured in the favour support anyway. Regards, CycloneNimrod^Talk? 19:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Technically yes, in reality no. Pedro :  Chat  19:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Besides, that would kill his chance of gaining membership into WP:200. xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 19:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Support met him, intelligent and centred, has done good work in important areas, no probs here. Franamax (talk) 10:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Co-nom Support, one of a kind. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Strongest support ever, except for the uber-strongest support ever, which is reserved for Sandy. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   For some reason I think hell will freeze over first ;-)Balloonman (talk) 16:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4. Support - Per WP:WTHN, excellent candidate. Preliminary look at his contributions shows nothing to be worried about and I have no doubt he'd use the tools wisely in various areas of Wikipedia. Good luck. Regards, CycloneNimrod^Talk? 10:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support - obviously. --Peter Andersen (talk) 10:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Excellent nominations. Rudget (Help?) 10:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support - I think this user would be able to learn to use the tools and would use them responsibly. Carcharoth (talk) 11:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support Even if he only uses the tools once, he is most certainly a net positive, and there is really nothing bad to be said. Editorofthewiki^{review my edits here!} 11:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Very, very impressed with his comments during the "large class is disrupting Wikipedia" thing a week ago, and his essay on the subject, and his contribs, and... everything. --barneca (talk) 12:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support, Jbmurray seems to be a great editor who is respectful and has a good attitude towards conflicts. -- Natalya 12:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. Strong Support. Has my full support and more importantly my full respect, he has definetly become of the best editors on Wikipedia. Acer (talk) 12:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support Good positive attitude. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support - Great user, terrific job with his own and suggestions for other school/university projects. Hello32020 (talk) 12:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support no-brainer (the decision that is, not the candidate :) ). Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
15. strong support. SandyGeorgia is someone I trust, and the statement/answers make me think this will be an excellent choice for admin. Dan Beale-Cocks 13:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
16. Strong support - Both as per WP:WTHN and this users clear sense of loyalty to the encylopaedia. Good work! :) asenine ^{say what?} 13:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
17. +Support. In the place and the time and the event where truth reveals itself, unobstructed by the oppositions and differentiations of language, we let go of conceptual thinking and of the logical way we order the world, so that like creativity in art, the appropriate insight and response arises naturally and spontaneously in the mind. Ling.Nut (talk) 14:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support No problems here; a civil editor dedicated to adding new material is fine by me. --CapitalR (talk) 14:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support. As Casliber said above, a complete no-brainer. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support. Editors who care about content should make good administrators! --Regents Park (talk) 14:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support. Here's an editor who really understands Wikipedia's mission, its strengths, weaknesses, potential and limitations. Wikipedia is extremely fortunate that he has chosen to help rather than criticise. And he really does help a lot: for instance he has become one of GA's most careful and positive reviewers. He will make an excellent admin. Geometry guy 15:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support - seems to have been very valuable to Wikipedia. Always use the edit summary though. Lradrama 15:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support. No question about it in my mind; Jbmurray will be a fine admin. Mike Christie (talk) 15:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support JB is not a complete stranger to me, and I have seen his fine work. No doubts that he would make a fine admin. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support Very capable editor.Ceoil (talk) 15:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support I've been thoroughly impressed with jbmurray's understanding of WP policies, his willingness to guide and teach inexperienced users (including those who are not his real-life students), and his overall good attitude and calm demeanor. Karanacs (talk) 15:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support Good judgement; excellent communication skills; great editing, reviewing, and writing; and solid knowledge of policy and guidelines. Confident he would make a fine admin. Maralia (talk) 15:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
28. yes, yes, yes, YES. And let's keep bringing in academicians who "get it" like jbmurray does. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 15:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
29. heck ya. Malleus said it best above by quoting Casliber. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support MBisanz ^talk
31. Support as I could not identify any compelling reasons for me to oppose. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support; everything looks good here; good candidate. Antandrus (talk) 16:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support. A good editor with a lot of experience. He's always civil and he's a mainspace contributor. Excellent candidate. Useight (talk) 17:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
34. SandyGeorgia co-nomming? That's an auto-support. Wizardman 17:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
35. Strong support Wizardman missed another chance to nominate such a wonderful candidate for adminship. Chances that Professor Murray becomes an admin: 100%. Chances that he will act immaturely: not a chance. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
36. Strong Support. Absolutely. I'd likely support blocking anybody who opposed. This type of editor is exactly what Wikipedia is supposed to be about. --JayHenry (talk) 17:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support - as said above by so many of our colleagues, this is an excellent candidate who will use the tools wisely. Risker (talk) 17:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support per almost everyone else. Sound user. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 17:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support Excellent candidate. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 17:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support. I have no reservations. - Philippe 17:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support without hesitation. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 18:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support - This was one of the easiest RfA to judge. Excellent all around. Trust abounds. Net positive. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support Of course! Excellent member of the community. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support per above. Understands Wikipedia, intelligent and trustworthy. J Milburn (talk) 18:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support well rounded, great user. Spencer^T♦C 18:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support, obviously. Smart, thoughtful, incredibly helpful, and understands Wikipedia. I'm still amazed that something this progressive managed to get done at UBC, of all places. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support. Very level-headed, from what I've seen.--ragesoss (talk) 20:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
48. Wikibreak-breaking support - outstanding editor. EJF (talk) 20:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support - A look through the candidate's history shows outstanding contributions to Wikipedia. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 20:10, May 10, 2008 (UTC)
50. dvdrw 20:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support — iridescent 20:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
52. Strong support. bibliomaniac15 21:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support Excellent content contributor, thus likely to know what it is to be on the other side of admin actions - including a brief block. That last is long past history, and I see no evidence that the mop would be abused. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support. It is a pleasure to support such as a calm, communicative, and productive content editor getting some additional tools.--Slp1 (talk) 21:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support An academic who really understands Wikipedia, and an outstanding contributor as well. Wikipedia can only benefit from his use of admin tools. κaτaʟaveno^T_C 22:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support -- It seems everything has already been said! Good luck! --Cameron (t|p|c) 22:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support A breath of fresh air and exactly what Wikipedia needs. Understands what Wikipedia is about, but takes an innovative approach to improving the encyclopedia. faithless (^speak) 23:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 23:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
59. All the good reasons have already been used support Alexfusco⁵ 23:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support No problems here. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 23:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support Sensible and knowledgeable. Epbr123 (talk) 00:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support Knows what he's doing and is likely to make very good use of the tools. - Bilby (talk) 01:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support. Academic ... Canadian ... what's not to like? Is a unique editor and has made some cool contributions. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Strictly speaking, not Canadian... not even a landed immigrant. ;) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC) [reply]

    Well, in THAT case ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

64. Per the 63 people above me, especially the Canadian thing. ;) Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 02:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
65. Support Very impressive work with WP:MMM. Thingg^⊕⊗ 02:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support. WP:MMM and related editing points Jbmurray out as an editor who is obviously trustworthy and with good judgment. In the absence of anything negative as far as I can tell, he will make a great administrator. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 02:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
67. Support duh. (sorry, I couldn't come up with anything to say that hadn't already been said—and I'm lazy :P ) J.delanoy^gabs_adds 02:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
68. Support NETHWATT. (No Evidence That He Will Abuse The Tools). - Merzbow (talk) 03:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
69. Support, excellent contributor, no evidence that this person will abuse the tools. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]
70. Support Trusted user. Good leadership skills. Enigma ^message 05:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
71. Support Looks good! He is a very good editor. He has created many articles. I see no reason to oppose him. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
72. Support - His work with WP:MMM has been great, and he has been quite civil and rational in all communications that I have seen.--Danaman5 (talk) 08:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
73. Support - Great candidate.--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
74. Of course - Strong Support. Royalbroil 13:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
75. Support Capable of effectively coordinating what has essentially been the most successful school project on Wikipedia, and a co-nom by Sandy? Sure meets my criteria. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
76. Support. Although I was reluctant to admit it earlier when in a disagreement with Jbmurray, his ability to keep calm despite my unfriendly attitude at Talk:The Accidental is an excellent skill. I think he is well suited for the position, and I'd like to wish him the best of luck. Qst (talk) 14:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
77. A big, hearty support. I've had nothing but positive and productive interactions with Jbmurray and think that his talents on Wikipedia will only be enhanced by the tools. --Kakofonous (talk) 16:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
78. Support A complete and wholehearted support. Excellent contributor, civil and rational. Woody (talk) 17:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
79. Support' Great contributor, no problems with giving him the tools. Davewild (talk) 17:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
80. Support Solid, experienced editor. I have no concerns. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 18:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
81. Support. Majoreditor (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
82. Can we use his research as reliable sources for subjects relating to Latin America? :-) miranda 19:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
83. Strong Support A Wikipedian who supports article building and actively encourages everyday people into contributing to the project! Say it isn't so! *swoon* --Sharkface^T/_C 19:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
84. Support pretty much a model Wikipedian. Good luck! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
85. Support. Ashton1983 (talk) 19:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
86. Support Stupid2 (talk) 21:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
87. Support Very qualified candidate. Best of luck to you! GlassCobra 22:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
88. When I first stumbled upon this editor, it was the product of a mention of him on the dreaded medium of IRC in the hated, loathed, despised, cabal channel (someone was scouting a newcomer who may offer fresh meat to the pack). Because of its nature, I, of course, had to do a background check on him to find out what was actually happening, and found his RfA in a state of 80/0/0, where the format is support/oppose/neutral. If I were to switch the format to oppose/support/neutral, that would confuse many people, including bureaucrats, so I will avoid doing so. Regardless of the format of the tally, I must say that I was astounded to find this passing so flamboyantly so quickly. I immediately assumed that everyone I knew was a sockpuppet of Jimbo Wales himself, but quickly rid myself of this notion, as this is clearly incorrect, as per my logic (someone correct me if I am mistaken).
    As I had enough time but wanted to conserve my efforts to aid me when/if I may need it, I will read the candidate's answers and the nominators' statements at a later time, perhaps after it is closed and placed somewhere of WP:100 fame. Who knows? All I know is that this RfA is currently passing at a rate of 87/1/0 (or 0/87/1, if you want to use a more appealing format), so my hands are tied. I must participate in this RfA, as per de facto community procedure.
    However, I must express some concerns about this user that I encountered prima facie:

    • He did not self-nominate himself, so that must insinuate that he is either knowledgeable of how things work, or that he intends to take us over from the inside out. I will leave it to the reader to assume which one will likely occur, as I am having trouble doing so myself.
    • His username also contains two of the same letters in sequence, a commendable feat in and of itself as many of our finest admins cannot make this claim, but the number of letters in his username is also divisible by the number of letters in sequence, a truly awesome feat of extremely great consequence of which everyone simply must take note.
    • I have never reverted a vandalized revision of an article to a prior revision of this user, so that, of course, made me very suspicious.
    • I had never heard of this user before he submitted to the enticing aroma of an RfA, so my vote is based purely on the little things (after all, Sherlock Holmes was brilliant from his observations of trifles), but I guess it is for the best if I haven’t heard of you because that must mean you (gasp) work on articles. That leads me to even more dubiousness – How many FAs have you written? How many DYKs have you nominated? How many GA nominations have you seen and commented on? These are truly the questions that everyone should consider, because every admin will inherently have to work on articles, as per the fantastic (and I don't mean "absolutely wonderful" when I say "fantastic"; see definition 1a) community hazing rituals.
      However, I believe the good trifles of this user cancel out his frivolous traits and other innumerable things (which I challenge the reader to brainstorm); thus, I have cast a vote (not a "!vote," as so many people call them) of support for this user. Now the tally lies at either 88/1/0, 1/88/0, or 0/1/88, depending on your point of view (preferably the penultimate one, as that one naturally makes more sense). May the best of luck befall you on this turbulent RfA. —Animum (talk) 01:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    If you are going to make such inflammatory statements, please support each and every one with diffs! Especially that alphabet and mathematics stuff, unless when you say "letters", you mean OTRS complaints, and "divisible" you mean the wiki-community. Also, since right now we're bookended as first and last !votes, change the heading to whatever you think best :) Franamax (talk) 01:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    What? You mean I'm not being taken seriously? —Animum (talk) 01:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Of course you're being taken seriously! rly, srs? I propose we change this section to "abstain" then - unless that means we can't have a beer:) Franamax (talk) 02:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

89. Strong support very skillful user who uses his skills very responsibly, great contributor. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
90. Support, I have seen many great things from this editor. Displays excellent judgment, a good temperament, and a dedication to building content. --Laser brain (talk) 04:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
91. User has no need of yet another Support, but how can I not chirp in about how great it is to see others using WP in the classroom at a time when it's more and more under attack in the academy. Any the edits, etc., are great! -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 05:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
92. Support - pile-on support to hopefully reach WP:100, but also because I trust this user, especially after what he has shown the community he is capable of doing through WP:MMM. -MBK₀₀₄ 07:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
93. Support. Hemmingsen 08:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)'[reply]
94. Support BuddingJournalist 08:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
95. Support. No problem. Malinaccier Public (talk) 12:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
96. Support Will be a great asset, will not misuse tools. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 12:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
97. Incredible Support no risk of abuse. Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 14:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
98. Support for a deft handling of the single first oppose. xenocidic (talk) 16:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, that other one was kind of a !oppose anyway...  Frank  |  talk  22:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

99. Support number 99! Yes, good user, no big deal. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
100. No more beat the Nom Support here!Balloonman (talk) 18:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     WP:100 added. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

101. Support as a fine editor, and...per Animum, because I love the word penultimate even if I don't agree with O/S/N notation...  Frank  |  talk  18:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
102. Support not letting this one get away. --MPerel 18:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
103. Support Solid answers to questions. Good on ya, mate.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 20:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
104. Support &#151;paranomia (formerly tim.bounceback)^{a door?} 20:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
105. Support Top of the class. Gazimoff ^Write_Read 22:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
106. SupportTotally! Why not?-- Barkjon  23:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
107. Support - absolutely, excellent editor. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 23:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
108. Support. Dedicated and helpful editor who should benefit the project as an admin. Cla68 (talk) 23:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
109. Strong Support - Would it be wrong for someone who works with religious articles to call him a gift from God? John Carter (talk) 00:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     I think it would be wrong, but my parents would agree with you.  :) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC) [reply]

110. Support, more like this candidate, please!™ Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
111. Support. I've seen him at work at DYK? -- he's tireless and trustworthy. --Rosiestep (talk) 05:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
112. Utmost support. An intelligent, thoughtful and principled editor with a phenomenal workrate, and someone whom, I strongly suspect, will be instrumental in many of the changes we might see on Wikipedia over the coming years ;) EyeSerene^talk 07:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
113. Strong Support - I have followed the Madness Wikiproject ever since it was posted on the community portal, and am very impressed with its work. I don't know a lot about Mr. Murray from personal interaction, but the fact that he worked so well and so hard to dramatically improve wikipedia demonstrates many very positive qualities, most important of which is trust, and I believe we can trust him with the admin tools and responsabilities. True, adminship isn't a reward, but I don't think he's asking for an award, he wants more responsabilities, and we should give them to him. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
114. <sarcasm>Oppose. I believe that nominations increase the cabalism of Wikipedia.</sarcasm> · AndonicO ^Engage. 15:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     Commenting further (and without jesting, this time)... I've been thoroughly impressed the few times I've run into Jbmurray. Could have sworn he was an admin. · AndonicO ^Engage. 15:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     Two messages now left for AndonicO, asking for clarification. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     Sorry about the confusion, I hope it's clearer now. · AndonicO ^Engage. 19:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

115. Support of course. Johnbod (talk) 19:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
116. Support: an articulate and thoughtful editor who values in-line citations and the importance of reliable sources. Wikipedia would do well to have him as an administrator. I look forward to working with him in the future. J Readings (talk) 19:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
117. I've really struggled here.... struggled to add any more value to the debate! So I'll just lob in a support anyway! Seriously - obviously. A credit to Wikipedia, and a fellow editor that should make us all proud to be Wikipedians to work alongside. Pedro :  Chat  19:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
118. Support Definitely trustworthy! Thanks for your edits to Buckeye (chicken). VanTucky 20:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
119. Strong support. I know this editor personally and have a great deal of admiration for his hard work on Latin American projects, as well as his guidance to new editors (his students) and general common sense. He will be a credit to the mop. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
120. Support. Good contributions throughout Wikipedia, good anwers to questions, no reason not to support. ~AH1^(TCU) 21:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
121. Support No qualms here. hmwithτ 22:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
122. support One of our best editors, and will be an equally good admin. DGG (talk) 23:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
123. Support Good choice. -- Avi (talk) 03:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
124. Support Why should such a committed content contributor not have the tools at his disposal when he needs them? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
125. Support. Trenchant but perceptive contributions on recent FARC of The Office. Although it failed to remain featured, I don't hold it against him. We need more admins who dive deep into editing. A good editor-admin knows the tools extend his reach. Daniel Case (talk) 04:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
126. Nothing less than Big Support: Somebody give me a reason to oppose him. :D -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 05:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
127. Support Encountered this user during the Global Economics fiasco, positive interactions, and experienced editor. IMHO, admins are editors first, and admins second. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 05:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
128. Support—Needs to be cloned. Tony (talk) 11:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
129. Support Knows what hes doing, will have no probs. Roadrunnerz45 ^{(talk 2 me)} 13:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
130. Support a good candidate, who appears unlikely to act with haste and thus abuse the tools and the community's trust. No reservations whatsoever. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
131. Support Of course. Graham87 15:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
132. Support All the reasons for that everyone else wrote, also, I read the Elonka diffs, and they seem to be commenting on the article rather than the contributor. Surely we're allowed to say "poor sources" and "poor article" without being considered to be making a personal attack. --GRuban (talk) 15:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
133. Support. Excellent editor. He is good at consensus and handles difficult individuals and situations well. qp10qp (talk) 17:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
134. Support. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 21:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
135. Support per WP:EVERYONEELSELIKESIT (tips hat to EVula) —Alex.Muller 22:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
136. Support - seems to offer soem good life experiences to freshen up Wikipedia.--Bedford 06:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
137. Support, why not? Stifle (talk) 11:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
138. Support yep. —αἰτίας •discussion• 12:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
139. Strong support - we need more academics (yes, like me) bringing knowledge to students via WP. Surely he needs the tools. Great nom. Bearian (talk) 14:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
140. Support Speed CG ^Talk 16:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
141. Support, yes please. Neıl ☎ 16:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
142. Support Good user interaction - willing to take the time to explain actions Fritzpoll (talk) 16:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
143. Support—Based on comment on talk page. Zginder 2008-05-15T17:17Z (UTC)
144. Support. - Works well collaboratively with others, while maintaining a cool-head and polite demeanor throughout. Admirable traits for an Admin. Cirt (talk) 18:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
145. Strong Support ~ Intelligent, capable, objective, would be a valuable asset for Wikipedia as an admin.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 20:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
146. Support - excellent all round, I'm particularly impressed by his University project, a splendid example of how to get outsiders involved with Wikipedia to the benefit of both. JohnCD (talk) 20:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
147. This guy's already an astonishing net-benefit for the project - promoting Wikipedia through the construction of FA's as an assignment is one of the most incredible ideas ever. Support, easily. Valtoras (talk) 20:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
148. O yes!SilkTork *^YES! 22:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
149. Support It's about time. Tony the Marine (talk) 03:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
150. Warm support He's smart, articulate, friendly and clearly devoted to Wikipedia. I haven't the smallest doubt that he will use the tools well and wisely. :) Willow (talk) 04:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
151. Support Even completely ignoring the class project, I'd seen good work from this user elsewhere and we need more admins with a solid content background and even temperament to handle issues which arise. With it, I think that's the icing on the cake. Good luck. Orderinchaos 08:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
152. Support. What a fine candidate. Axl (talk) 12:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
153. Support. Totally. Absolutely. Definitely. Good luck with the mop! StephenBuxton (talk) 14:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
154. Support Excellent editor, will be fine with the tools. Cenarium (talk) 15:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
155. Support - not like you really need it at this point. Tiptoety ^talk 19:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
156. Strong Support Pilein' and Pilein' on... RedThunder 22:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
157. Support A good candidate for the mop. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
158. Strong candidate. Acalamari 02:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
159. Support great editor —dima/talk/ 02:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
160. Support no reason to think he'd abuse the tools. Never been anything but civil in my interactions with him. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
161. Support - I thought you were an admin .LOL, nuff said. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 03:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose. I think that Jbmurray's university project was a great idea, I enjoyed reading his essay, and I am a big supporter of getting more academics involved with Wikipedia. However, those reasons aren't enough to support someone for adminship. One key reason to oppose, is simply that I don't see him needing the tools. This nom seems to be more of a case of awarding a "prize", than giving tools to someone who actively needs them. Also, and of more concern, when I was recently in a conflict with Jbmurray about the Dirty Dancing article, I was not impressed with his on-wiki communication skills. I found him short-tempered, dismissive, and quick to blame, in ways that escalated a dispute rather than de-escalating it. I also have strong concerns about his involvement with the FA process, because of the growing cliquishness on the part of some of the senior FA reviewers, and the often arbitrary and frequently trivial reasons that are given for opposing the promotion of an article. I'm not going to go into details about my concerns about the FA reviewing process here, because this isn't the right venue. However, I do realize that by my opposing Jbmurray's adminship, I may well be diminishing or even destroying any chance that I have of getting another article through the FA political hoops. There's also another issue here, which has to do with WP:CIVIL. There is a disturbing trend on Wikipedia, that when someone is an article-writer, the culture often overlooks some very serious behavioral problems, specifically as regards civility and personal attacks. This problem is bad enough when dealing with a regular editor, but to have another short-tempered admin, would be a very bad idea. And to have a group of uncivil admins, who support each other in their attacks on other editors, especially editors who are trying to get articles to FA? I think that would be an even worse thing for Wikipedia, because that puts too much power into the hands of too few people. In short, I just don't think that Jbmurray handles conflict well, I don't think he would handle the "power" of adminship responsibly, I don't think he sets a good example of how a Wikipedian should act, and I don't want to see yet another uncivil admin FA reviewer. I do have respect for some of the articles that Jbmurray and his students have created. But I cannot in good conscience support him for administrator at this time. --Elonka 22:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   You are most certainly entitled to an opinion on the matter and I doubt that your oppose will have any effect on any future FA, ast least I should hope not. As for him not needing the tools, I presume you read: "occasionally blocking vandals, for instance, and deleting pages. And admin tools are fairly often required to help the Featured Article director's delegate and others who are involved in the review processes." - even though he won't use them all the time like some administrators, he will use them, and he'll use them responsibly as far as I can tell. Regarding this Dirty Dancing incident, after viewing that section and the talk messages you two have exchanged, I don't think he's shown anything that would lessen his ability to make a good administrator. Everyone has a short fuse every now and then, I don't think we can expect our administrators to be inhuman in that sense.

   As I mentioned before, you re entirely welcome to your opinion in this RfA but I honestly haven't seen any reason to oppose. Perhaps you'd like to show us some specific diffs to support your claims? Regards, CycloneNimrod^Talk? 23:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Since you have passingly mentioned your concerns about the FA review process and possible politics/cliqueishness, can you provide a link where you are pursuing those concerns, for ongoing review? Failing that, specify your concerns with regards to JBM in particular, since you are raising them in the context of his RFA request rather than in a general policy area? Thanks! Franamax (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   As near as I can tell, it's at Talk:Dirty Dancing#Why the sources should be improved and User talk:Jbmurray#Dirty Dancing. Was there also a conversation elsewhere that I couldn't find? Because I see absolutely nothing in either thread that corresponds with Elonka's description of Jbmurray's attitude. Also, as an afterthought, I think "doesn't need the tools" has been pretty much deprecated as an oppose rationale, and in this case I don't think it's really true. --barneca (talk) 23:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm sorry, I can't see anything wrong with Jbmurray's responses on the Dirty Dancing talk page - Elonka can you please provide the diffs that you find problematic? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I mentioned above that I would let other editors judge how I managed this conflict. At present, there are only traces of the interaction between Elonka and myself, as she withdrew many of her comments--and in return I also withdrew my responses--after some prompting by other editors. However, you can see the relevant thread on my talk page (skip down to "Dirty Dancing") and Talk:Dirty Dancing (skip to the threads "Sources" and "Why the Sources should be Improved"). (All the discussion on her talk page was merely carried over from mine.) I should say that I was most taken aback by these diffs [1] [2], in which Elonka chose to edit my talk page comments directly; those diffs should also indicate, I think, what the heart of the matter was for her.

   All I'll say in addition, is that I was asked to help on the article, did so in good faith, and was repeatedly and rather brusquely accused of incivility. I was also accused of making personal attacks etc., when at all times I was commenting on the content rather than the contributor, as per WP:NPA, to which Elonka wished to refer me. I would maintain that at no point was I incivil; and certainly at no point did I make any personal attacks. And despite our differences, I have continued to offer my help with the article (for which, incidentally, I see I am the fourth major contributor, even with the very light copy-edit on which I embarked).

   Meanwhile, I'm sorry that Elonka is frustrated with the FA process. Personally, I think that, though it has its ups and downs like all such processes, it is really pretty good, and I welcome her (and indeed any other editors') contributions if they wish to improve it, by commenting on candidates and reviews. I do not agree with the implication that my observations were trivial; they referred rather to one of the core principles of the encyclopedia.

   But I appreciate that I will probably not persuade Elonka. And I'm glad, if that means that I don't get a 100% clean sweep at this RfA. Nobody's perfect, least of all me. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   In response to some of the other questions here, I realize that it's a bit difficult to follow, because my conversations with Jbmurray took place on multiple pages, and all the current conversations on the related talkpages look civil. That is because I had already expressed concerns about Jbmurray's language, at one point tried to refactor some of his comments,[3][4] but he then reverted me and put the comments back on the page,[5] telling me I wasn't allowed to change his posts without permission.[6] So I opted to just delete all of my own responses on multiple pages. At which point he finally decided to back down and deleted his own comments. For those who are interested in more details, I'll do my best to offer a few more diffs, though I realize that it's a somewhat futile gesture at this point with my lone oppose. But, since I have been asked for details, I will provide them. Basically, it became clear to me during my discussion with Jbmurray over the Dirty Dancing article, that Jbmurray does not yet understand one of the core elements of dispute resolution on Wikipedia, the necessity of "commenting on content and not the contributor." He also took actions which I felt escalated a dispute rather than de-escalating it, such as his (original) section header at Talk:Dirty Dancing, a classic example of incivility, "Why the poor sources make for a poor article"[7] (especially when made on an article that was already at GA status). When, I pointed it out[8] he did offer that I could change it,[9] so I did so, and took the opportunity to refactor other comments of his which I felt were unhelpful, since they had referred to "the editor(s) rather than the article."[10] However, he then reverted me, putting the incivility and personal comments back,[11] and compounding things by on multiple occasions repeating the "poor article" statement which I had expressed concerns about in the first place.[12] He also accused me of incivility and personal attacks.[13][14] And lastly, what continues to confirm my original impression that he is not yet ready for adminship, is his above comment here at his RfA, arguing with my oppose, and showing that he still doesn't "get it". He still says that he was "commenting on the content rather than the contributor", he still cannot acknowledge that he may have said anything uncivil, or anything that might be regarded as an attack.[15] It seems that he is either unwilling or unable to grasp this core concept of Wikipedia communication. It's one thing to make a mistake, learn from it, and move on. It's another to make a mistake, but then continue to insist that you never did anything wrong. It is my feeling that that kind of "refusing to back down" demeanor, in an individual with access to administrator tools, is a recipe for trouble. --Elonka 04:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Hi. We seem to be providing the same diffs, on the whole. It might make it easier if you could provide a single one in which I was commenting on the contributor rather than the content? I'd be more than happy to reconsider and to apologize. This is not to win your support. (Again, I recognize that you are unlikely to be persuaded, and I'm happy for that to be the case.) It is so I can learn. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Elonka, saying something is a poor article is not incivil, especially when the reasons (poor sources) are given. I'm worried here that you have mischaracterised what happened. What you have said makes it sounds like there was really bad incivility here. Indeed, I went looking for this incivility. As it happens, the most I can find is use of the word "poor", and that was about the article, not you. You said that he was "short-tempered, dismissive, and quick to blame", but I don't see that anywhere in the discussions linked here, even the old versions of those discussions. What I do see is an over-reaction on your part. My reading of what happened is that the comments "the article reads like a fansite" and the suggestion of "going to a library, checking out books, improving the sources" seem to have upset you. You assumed that Jbmurray should have known "who you were" (that you are capable of carrying out detailed research like this), and got affronted when he gave you honest advice based purely on the article as it stood when he saw it. You should be welcoming such honest criticism. I would like to quote what Karancs said:

   "His comments are not meant as a personal attack on you; even the best contributors sometimes need help seeing what to do with their favorite articles. Bringing an article to FA status is hard work, and sometimes it is harder to do in a group setting than it is by yourself. Please take the comments in the good faith they were offered, and see them as an opportunity to improve the article, not an attack on you."

   From what I can see, jbmurray offered you a lot of good advice, and you took affront at that. An example of the good advice is

   "As it happens, however, this is a film that has been fairly extensively discussed in the critical literature on 1980s film and music. This could be a featured article, an example of "our very best work," if a bit of effort went into it. Now, the precise effects on the article of doing that work would be unpredictable: you could only know once you'd read the sources. Above all, however, it would serve to contextualize the film: at present context is dealt with symptomatically only under the rubric of "pre-production" whereas "Legacy" (even after I took out some real trivia) remains on the order of "where are they now?""

   I see nothing incivil about the advice Jbmurray gave you, or the way he handled your affront. Possibly he should have been less dismissive with the "if a bit of effort went into it" comment and done more to acknowledge the work done so far (though in fairness the article does need quite a bit more effort to reach FA standard - that is a brutal but honest assessment). Given the context, in the midst of a lot of useful advice, it would have been best for you to swallow your pride and gratefully accept the advice given. Furthermore, arguing with opposes at RfA is a mistake that many people make, and it is usually only those that hang out at RfA, or who are coached to pass RfA, that realise they need to avoid this. Jbmurray's latest answer is short and sweet. Would you consider dropping this matter here and taking this somewhere else, or keeping your reply short as well? BTW, Jbmurray, you can link directly to sections in old page versions as well, like this and this. No need to ask people to "skip down". Carcharoth (talk) 08:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Agree with Carcharoth - I don't see incivility. It can be very tricky giving constructive criticism in these cases. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Not a single diff you have provided, Elonka, shows any incivility or a personal attack towards you. Every single diff instead shows someone trying to stay on topic (about bad sources making bad articles) and I see nothing wrong with that. He clarified on several occasions that this wasn't about you, it was about the article, so I don't see how any of it could be a "personal attack". Anyway, as you've said, I doubt this oppose will make any difference to the outcome of the RfA. Jbmurray is an excellent editor and I have no doubt he'll make a sincerely good administrator, too. Regards, CycloneNimrod^Talk? 12:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Comment This is getting pretty long, so we should probably take this to the talk page. I will copy and paste the existing text. Cheers! J.delanoy^gabs_adds 00:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    

   (Elonka's reply to above comments) I agree that there is no "smoking gun" here. I did not mean to imply that Jbmurray's comments were egregiously uncivil. But I do still find it somewhat disturbing that he is unable to recognize the problem with what he did say, while at the same time he was accusing me of incivility and personal attacks.[16][17] I would ask for Jbmurray to supply diffs of where he felt that I was engaging in personal attacks, but he was not. Instead, Jbmurray, and his supporters,[18] are banding together with a demeanor of "Jbmurray didn't do anything wrong, Elonka just took it wrong."

    

   I do understand that in RfAs, people often oppose for personal reasons, or to seek revenge for older disputes. I hope that those who know me and my work, realize that this is not my style. I am speaking in good faith here, pointing out a problem that I perceive. If no one else perceives it (or if no one else is willing to speak up about it), so be it.

    

   To be clear about my concerns: It is my perception, that some FA reviewers belittle editors and their work, and the community either regards it as "okay", or allows them to get away with it for other reasons. Regardless of the reason behind it, I disagree with the procedure of being dismissive of other editors. I feel that a more civil demeanor is a better way to encourage good editing. In the case of this particular article, Dirty Dancing, I felt that when Jbmurray referred to this Good Article as a "poor article"[19] simply because he disagreed with the kind of sources being used, that he was being uncivil. WP:CIVIL specifically mentions things that can contribute to an uncivil environment, such as a "judgmental tone" or "belittling editors". A specific example given is that of an edit summary such as "snipped rambling crap", which is a mild form of incivility. For Jbmurray to make a section header saying that something was a "poor article"[20] was uncivil, but what was worse was when I pointed out to him that I had trouble with his language,[21][22] and he kept repeating it.[23][24] I felt that was uncivil as well. When he framed his arguments as, "Elonka isn't keen about improving the references,"[25] I felt that was "commenting on the contributor" as well as an assumption of bad faith and a (mild) personal attack. When he referred to the article as "sounding like a fansite"[26] it was dismissive. When he referred to a wide class of articles as being "created by fans",[27] it was again uncivil, and was making an (incorrect) assumption about the motivation (at least on my part) for working on the article. When he sprinkled comments with opinions about what I was or wasn't feeling, or what I did or didn't take "umbrage" to,[28] that too was a personally-targeted comment. It's a mild form of attack, but it's an attack nonetheless, and it is not helpful towards the goal of improving the article. Making negative assumptions about someone's mental state or work ethic, are usually not going to motivate them to work harder. Better would have been if Jbmurray could have focused strictly on constructive comments about the article, rather than about me. If he would have avoided negative adjectives and personal comments, I would not have had a problem with his criticism.

    

   A bit more about my own background: Off-wiki, I am a professional writer, and a professional copyeditor. I not only am paid to write, I am sought out to copyedit other people's work. I am a senior editor on industry white papers. Even among my friends and casual associates, people routinely refer to me as "the best proofreader they know." I am comfortable that I am a good writer, and an excellent researcher. And yet, on Wikipedia, some reviewers (such as Jbmurray) seem to feel that they have the right to treat me as though I'm a neophyte. Note: Not all reviewers do this. Most reviewers that I have dealt with do know how to write a civil critique.[29][30] They make constructive suggestions, are pleasant to work with, and their comments result in editors being more motivated to work on the article and further improve it. With a few other reviewers though (such as Jbmurray and a couple of his supporters[31]), I see a brusque and condescending demeanor, which at best is de-motivating, and at worst actively antagonizes people away from working on articles, or sometimes away from Wikipedia altogether. When I have spoken up about this kind of attitude,[32] there's a "closing of the ranks" by the reviewers, as they stick up for each other (SandyGeorgia even told me that I had to "be nice" to Tony1[33]) and they refuse to give any credence to the criticism.[34] They "dish it out[35] but can't take it". And the great irony here, is that these FA reviewers who may believe that they are trying to protect Wikipedia, are actually acting at cross-purposes, as they contribute to such an unpleasant environment, it antagonizes writers away from even trying to get an article to FA status.

    

   I am a volunteer on Wikipedia: I work on it because I want to, not because I have to. If I were a student with a sharp-tongued teacher, I might have to grovel a bit to get a good grade. Or if I were working for a salary, and one of the other rude FA reviewers were my boss, then there would also be a bit of a perception of, "You're being paid to put up with their bad attitudes". But that's not the case on Wikipedia, we're volunteers here. If we want more high quality articles, then we should be encouraging editors, not belittling them. It is my feeling that if there's an FA reviewer who doesn't understand that concept, then perhaps that reviewer should be asked to modify their behavior. And we absolutely shouldn't (in my opinion) give such a reviewer even more responsibility, with even more opportunities to antagonize other editors. Administrators need to have excellent communication skills. FA admins especially so. Based on my observations of Jbmurray's behavior, I do not believe that he yet meets that standard. --Elonka 16:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Per the request above to keep this short, Jbmurray replied on the talk page. [36] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Tony's response moved to the talk page. [37] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Elonka, you do realise that being an editor and an admin are different things? When you do editorial things, you take off the admin hat and are an editor just like everyone else. That is what FA reviewers and workers are doing. There is no such thing as an "FA admin", other than in the narrow sense of cleaning up FA process pages. When Jbmurray comments on FAs, he won't be using his admin tools (or he shouldn't be). His being an admin won't confer any special status at all. Adminship used to be no big deal, and I think you are overdoing your point here, but you've made your point, and I've made mine. Probably best to leave it there, like I said before. Carcharoth (talk) 13:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I do not subscribe to the "no big deal" definition. Adminship is a big deal. Administrators are expected to be rolemodels. ArbCom agrees: "Administrators are held to high standards of conduct, as they are often perceived as the "official face" of Wikipedia. Administrators must be courteous, and exercise good judgment and patience in dealing with others." I'd also like to point out that Jbmurray's incivility was not limited to my one dispute with him. Just looking over his contribs over the last couple weeks, there are multiple diffs of concern. For example, these kinds of edit summaries are not helpful, from referring to something as "stupid",[38][39][40][41] referring to another editor's "stubbornness",[42] or saying how "*boring*" an article was.[43] It's also generally not going to de-escalate a dispute by accusing someone of "mindlessly" reverting something,[44] And then there was this: When another editor tagged four of Jbmurray's images, Jbmurray responded by putting FOUR duplicated messages on that editor's talkpage.[45] A violation of WP:POINT, and something which he's done another time as well:[46] Lastly: It's one thing to lose one's temper occasionally, and then think about it later, retract your words, apologize and promise to do better. But Jbmurray is continuing to maintain his "I did nothing wrong" attitude. Which is why I am still maintaining my "Oppose". --Elonka 04:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Repeating the request of J.delanoy above: This is getting pretty long, so we should probably take this to the talk page. I will copy and paste the existing text. [47] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   For those interested, I have responded briefly on the talk page. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I believe that non-self nominations increase the cabalism of Wikipedia. Zginder 2008-05-13T01:06Z (UTC)

   discussion not related to !vote moved to talk page. Balloonman (talk) 06:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Also because everybody else is supporting, so there must be something overlooked. Zginder 2008-05-14T02:19Z (UTC)

   Striking oppose per talk page. Zginder 2008-05-15T17:19Z (UTC)

Oppose candidate is an editor, therefore can't support. ([48] Al Tally (talk) 22:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, what? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 23:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this explains it and he's done it across all RfAs; do we strike this oppose? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately no, people are allowed to oppose for any reason, the 'crats know how to evaluate such !votes. The only time that we strike a person's vote is if the person is shown to be a vandal only account and/or is blocked.Balloonman (talk) 23:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vote striken out. The user is parody of User:Kmweber; WP:POINT troll. Icewedge (talk) 23:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unstricken. Kmweber's right to oppose for reasons that go counter to the general consensus has been upheld in two RfCs, an Arbcom case, and numerous AN/I threads. Similarly, while it may not be fair, Al Tally has the right to oppose. The crats will assess his reasoning when they close the RfA.Balloonman (talk) 23:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stricken per [thisBalloonman (talk) 00:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re re un-unstruck - you were right first(ish) time; the editor is not blocked/banned, and the 'Crat will be able to apply as much weight as it deserves (think of a feather in zero gravity). LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re re re struck (per [49]). xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 20:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Insert witty Neutral comment here. I can't be bothered to think up my own, I'm having a bad day -- Gurchzilla (talk) 12:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Note to closer: this !vote should be disregarded because a neutral !vote is prima facie evidence of neutrality. Neutrality can only be determined by consensus. I propose a poll. Franamax (talk) 04:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Note to closer: Hey, where's that "Attention of the wider community is requested" template thingie....? Ling.Nut (talk) 04:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. Neutral I had a look at the first fifty contributions, and it already made me think that he should be an administrator. However, I am unfamilliar with the supporters, so I am neutral.--Leolisa1997 (talk) 10:07, 17 May 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.