Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Computerjoe 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.


Computerjoe[edit]

Final (70/41/5) ended 21:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Computerjoe (talk · contribs) – Since his arrival at Wikipedia in December of 2004, Computerjoe has had what you would call a slightly bumpy ride. His first and second requests for adminship didn't go so well, but despite this he came back with a renewed sense and feel for editing Wikipedia, showing that he is willing to learn from his shortcomings and make sure they never happen again. I feel that this time, Computerjoe will come out successful. All of the issues since previous nominations have been fixed; with approximately 6,300 edits focusing on article space, namespace and talk space, Joe has the experience of navigating and editing Wikipedia coupled with a good understanding of it's community (note that he was also the founder of Wikipedia:Community Justice); he has also been a calm, cool head when civility was in short supply, having helped quiet down a few conflicts, and is what I believe a very good example of an experienced, civil Wikipedian. Master of Puppets That's hot. 20:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I accept Computerjoe's talk 21:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just wishing to add I've resigned at chair of WP:CJ due to reasons unrelated to this RfA. See Wikipedia talk:Community Justice/Archive 3. Computerjoe's talk 18:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Link updated. --kingboyk 21:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can I just add a little statement. I dislike the emphasis on WP:CJ. I would like to see opposes which give me ideas on how to improve, not just ones which criticise Community Justice. This way, in 6 months time - or whenever I have another RfA - I can actually assess myself if in a more efficient way. Computerjoe's talk 18:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, currently Community Justice no longer exists. Its been rebuilt and restructured into Wikipedia:Concordia--☆TBC☆ 21:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few helpful suggestions in amongst the oppose votes. If you're after more, you could try an editor review. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 15:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have an editor review, and I invented ER itself! Computerjoe's talk 15:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. You could link to your ER from your user and talk pages. I was going to suggest admin coaching, but you're signed up for that, too. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 16:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Admin coaching is not an admin academia training program to get you become a sysop. It's a program where admins orient NEWBIES to get around and understad wikipedia, not to prepare them in order to "pass an rfa" -- Drini 22:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. First to Support. All my interactions with him were fine. --Tone 21:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Naconkantari 21:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I beat the nominator support! *shifty eyes* Anyway, I think its obvious why. Master of Puppets That's hot. 21:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Good user.—G.He 21:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. I don't always agree with ComputerJoe's style or projects, but I have to commend him for always trying. --Danaman5 21:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. zOMG! Support! Misza13 T C 21:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 21:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I beat the nom Support! Raichu 21:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]
    No, you didn't. :D Master of Puppets That's hot. 21:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I've seen the user around quite a bit. An excellent candidate. Redux 21:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 22:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Great user. ForestH2
  11. Edit confilict Support Admrb♉ltz ([[User talk:|t]] • c • log) 22:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. Superb contributor. Adminship is long overdue here. Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 22:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Erm, *avoids cliche* Yeah, Support WerdnaTc@bCmLt 22:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. No cliche from he support I won't try and be cute -- Tawker 22:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support - Definitely. Sango123 (e) 22:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Another Rfa cliché #1 :) RadioKirk talk to me 22:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. Great user. DarthVader 22:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support - seems to be a good admin material abakharev 23:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support, appreciate the initiative of Comm. Justice (although it's at the point where it really needs to define its purpose). Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 23:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Weak Support Just try to improve on what Sean Black brought up and you should be fine. DGX 00:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support I actually just commented on one of his old Editor Reviews that I saw go by on RC patrol that I would support his next RfA--didn't realize until now that he already had opened one. In contrast to some of the views posed below, all of my interactions with the user have demonstrated him to be quite level-headed, and I think he's someone I could definitely trust with the tools. AmiDaniel (talk) 00:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Strong Support for his brilliant initiatives like WP:ER and WP:CJ, although I do stress the need for more mainspace participation. Rama's Arrow 00:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Although I disagree a bit of where CJ is heading and Computerjoe handles things, I completely, fully trust him with these tools and believes he deserves them.Osbus 00:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support WP:ER is good stuff.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! - review me 00:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Weak support Would have liked to see more AfD edits recently.  :) Dlohcierekim 02:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. Wikipedia:Community Justice is a little off the mark, but it is causing no harm at all. It is a good-faith attempt to improve the encyclopedia. Although this particular project hasn't been terribly successful thus far, it shows that Joe is dedicated to Wikipedia. All of us have had ideas that the community has rejected. Whether we've created a divisive userbox or nominated an article about a barely notable high school for deletion, we have all made a few suggestions that have blown up in our respective faces. At least Joe was willing to try to improve the community. He shouldn't be denied adminship for his inability able to fix this whole corrupt social structure. <cliché>After all, adminship is no big deal.</cliché> --TantalumTelluride 03:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support as I did in his first attempt. -- Mostly Rainy 04:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Yanksox 04:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Strong Support one of the best wikipedians around.  Grue  07:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support, deserves the mop at this time of asking, has waited patiently since last (2) RfAs. haz (user talk) 08:06, 23 May 2006
  31. Support --Terence Ong 10:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support I don't remember how I voted last time, but this time it's definitely a Support. Steveo2 11:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support After reading through the objections, it seems that even in the worst light, Joturner comes off as a very reasonable person. As for his userpage, it seems a little excessive (though not much) but it's mostly his actions that count in my book. I don't subscribe to the view that we need more Muslim admins though (maybe more Muslim editors, but admins are supposed to serve the community not impose their views). Who I think we need as admins (and I believe largely have) are reasonable people like Joturner. Good Luck. Captainj 12:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Apologies, I voted in the wrong place (serves me right for having the same page open in different tabs). I have no comment at this time on Computerjoe's nomination.Captainj 14:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Great user. --K a s h Talk | email 13:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support--Jusjih 13:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Nice user, involved in the community. -- Tangotango 13:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support - and to the people who say anyone who is well involved in WP:CJ shouldn't be an admin - why don't you voice your views properly so people can address them. Being constructive would help things move on a little I think. Ian13/talk 15:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Community Justice is a woeful idea, and should be disbanded immediately. How would you say I should go about putting that in constructive terms? When you look at just how little CJ has achieved, and just how terrible it would be if they'd actually achieved some of their aims (I've already mentioned {{Tracker}}), then I see nothing wrong with telling all members: disband CJ, and leave it as quickly as possible. And if, some day far into the future, anyone asks you if you had anything to do with the effort, lie. Seriously. Prospective admins need to have better judgment than to get involved in this sort of thing. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 16:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I dislike the focus placed on CJ. Surely it is me, not my organisation. We are trying to achieve more, but everything takes time. Computerjoe's talk 16:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Frankly, even though I'm not changing my vote, I'm not sure what more WP:CJ needs or intends to accomplish. I support the goal of promoting civility, but don't see WP:CJ as the means to that end. :) Dlohcierekim 12:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Strong Support This user knows what he's doing Mahogany
    Fellow Joe {weak) support per Tantalum and Haza. Joe 17:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC) moved to oppose [reply]
  38. support he is a great user and he deserves this. ILovePlankton (T—C—U—L) 18:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. Well as much as I share sympathy with the views of those down below that the CJ organisation is a bad idea (or at very least hasn't really achieved much as far as I can see), I don't see Computerjoe's involvement in that as impacting his ability to properly use the admin tools. Non-CJ contributions seem to suggest that he won't abuse them, and could make good use of them. Petros471 19:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Strongly Support the guy is a commited, dedicated wikipedian with so much to offer. His brilliant work as chairman of Community Justice and tireless efforts to end vandalism and disruption make him one of wikipedia's greatest assets. Of all the people i have met on wikipedia Computerjoe is the one who has my greatest amount of respect. He is kind, curteous, civil (a rare quality), hard working, willing to help people and give them a second chance when they slip up. In my humble opinion it would be the greatest of all tragedies (Oedipus included) if computerjoe did not get in to admin. If he is not the perfect wikipedian for admin i don't know who is. Computer Joe - you are an inspiration! Cicero Dog 21:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Thought he already was an admin support--Ac1983fan (talk • contribs) 23:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Bucketsofg✐ 23:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 23:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Asterion talk to me 00:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC). I have seen many admins with a third of his dedication to wikipedia than he's got.[reply]
  45. Support; the man is an asset to the community. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 00:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. Pepsidrinka 03:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. From what I've seen of this user, his contributions are solid and they demonstrate a thorough knowledge of policy. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/!? 03:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support per Osbus. --Rory096 04:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support contributions vastly exceed CJ. Those merit the mop. -- Samir धर्म 07:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support per Buchanan-Hermit Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 14:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Strong Support per Blnguyen. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 14:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support The problems raised regarding Community Justice appear to be outweighed by ComputerJoe's good standing. joturner 21:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support seems like he will be a good admin --rogerd 23:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support--Jay(Reply) 23:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Merovingian {T C @} 00:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support --Shultz IV 06:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support Has put a lot of effort into WP and has good initiative with creating CJ - • The Giant Puffin • 07:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support. Good guy.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 18:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support amply sufficient edits. Contributions to wikipedia of the best possible non-article editing sorts. Doesn't overly emphasize vandal fighting. ShortJason 22:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support - Nick C (Review Me!) 17:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support -- DS1953 talk 03:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support. CJ seems to be a good faith effort, but some seem to forget WP:AGF. Anyhow, Doc opposes on "myspace" strawman arguments, which is all the confirmation I need that this editor is the right person for the job. --Dragon695 09:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support Excellent guy. (^'-')^ Covington 11:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Do I have to give a reason? --GeorgeMoney T·C 17:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC) I oppose --GeorgeMoney T·C 15:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support Idem George money —Argentino (talk/cont.) 17:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support Good editor, dedicated to the project, no risk of abusing the tool or any other problems. TigerShark 20:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support I believe he's worthy of adminship. The invention of ER is also a good thing to have on your resume. Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Strong Support. I see nothing wrong with this user. The oppose votes seem a little misguided to me in light of recent events, and due to the fact that editors should be bold in their efforts. Editor review was a very good idea, and this user is making more good-faith attempts at self-improvement than I have seen out of anyone else. Grandmasterka 19:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Seems-unlikely-to-succeed-now-but-he-still-deserves-it-Support – Gurch 10:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Weakly support. Asked some questions on IRC. The clue is there, but it still needs some tending to. If Computerjoe is very cautious with his mop in the first month or two, and talks with people a lot, I don't see much going really wrong. Kim Bruning 17:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Spends far too much time on his "Community Justice" project [1], which seemingly doesn't actually do anything, instead focusing on useless bureaucracy. Supposedly campaigns for civility (but as I said doesn't actually do much) but reacts with hostility when confronted about his own incivility [2]. Totally misunderstands WP:POINT.[3] Many comments in debates show a severe adherance to structure and bureaucracy, which is coupled with the whole community justice thing. No substantial work done, no great ammount of effort put into contributions. I don't believe this candidate fully understands the role of an administrator, nor have the capability to use the tools responsibly.--Sean Black 22:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There seems to be a lot of criticism over the Community Justice project, with a lot of complaints saying that it has been ineffective and that it should be disbanded (which is expected, as CJ is still relatively new). Though I do partially agree with the former, I hope that the recent attempts (see the bottom of the page) to reform the project will help to improve the project. If it does manage to work out in the end, I wonder if perhaps opinions on Computerjoe will change?--☆TBC☆ 03:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose largely per Sean Black. The candidate might know the letter of the law when it comes to civility, but in seeing him around I haven't gotten the impression that he understands the spirit of it. When confronted with an incident where many people (me included) thought he was coming off as incivil, he was more concerned in arguing that he wasn't being incivil than admitting he might have been wrong. The inability to admit an error, and the lack of an understanding of the underlying spirit of civility (it's much more than just following a checklist of policies), I don't feel comfortable supporting at this time. --W.marsh 23:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose largely per Sean Black. I keep track of WP:CJ, and I see much more bureaucracy than action there—see for example the name change process currently on the talk pages—and I worry that it is an indicator that Computerjoe somewhat misses the point. However, I may change my view upon reflection and further information; see my question below. -- SCZenz 23:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. Proudest contribution appears to be an unproductive timesink; this may indicate a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's purpose. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S.: Appearance is confirmed by a section like this one. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. Third RfA in 5 months, very little activity before these. Also have same concerns as brought up by Sean Black and W.marsh. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 23:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose per Sean Black and Marsh. JoshuaZ 00:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Joe has asked for more constructive criticism in his RfA, so I am going to attempt to do so here: More work in a variety of Wikipedia space areas, especially AfDs and related deletions, to get a better handle on those (especially since he wants to close them), a bit more work in article space, and maybe a bit more with WP:AIV as first recommendations. JoshuaZ 00:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose per SCZenz. Instead of spending his early months here learning how the community actually operates, Computerjoe has been focused on these somewhat misguided projects. FreplySpang 00:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've just realized that he's been around a lot longer than I thought. "Early months" was inaccurate. Nevertheless, I think that the bureaucracy and lack of direction of WP:CJ reflect poorly on his understanding of Wikipedia. FreplySpang 14:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strong oppose per Sean black. Mackensen (talk) 00:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose per concerns raised above. NSLE (T+C) at 01:09 UTC (2006-05-23)
  10. Strong oppose. Community Justice has apparently done nothing, and has been his only real contribution to the encyclopedia. Ral315 (talk) 01:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. I have made such articles as Marske-by-the-Sea, numerous stubs, as well as WP:ER. My main interest is building the encyclopedia. Computerjoe's talk 06:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. No way. My interactions with Joe off-wiki have shown him to be a very clever, likeable bloke. But get him on Wikipedia and that impression goes all to pot! Community Justice, in particular, is the worst idea to pop up on this project since that "ranking users" thing (anyone remember that?), and Joe's enthusiasm for that effort is worrisome. Attempts to build things like {{Tracker}} and suchlike that do little more than enable lynch mobs to form are particularly creepy, and I do not think that anyone who is heavily involved in this Community Justice thing can be trusted with admin tools at this time. Perhaps in a year's time, well after this thing has bitten the dust, and Joe has meanwhile attained the amount of Clue his intelligence suggests he should have already, he might be worth considering. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 02:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been speaking to Joe on IRC and, while he would never have had my support this time 'round, I had high hopes that he would develop into a good Wikipedian in six months or so. Since then, however ... well, renaming CJ to a much less creepy name was a Good Step. Wikipedia:Civility noticeboard and Wikipedia:Deletion noticeboard, Concordia's muscly but brainless bodyguards, however, really need to go. This morning I found one user using a discussion from the "civility experts" (yes, really!) on The Official Civility Noticeboard as justification for a personal attack. Not only are these things unnecessary, but they are being used in a manner that will make Wikipedia worse off. If Joe has the capacity to receive a Clue, he has not demonstrated it this week. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 00:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Those noticeboard pages were just created, and I have high hopes that once more Concordia members reflect on the situation there, they'll realize not to feed the trolls. I don't think Joe should be held responsible for their current content until he has a chance to take action. -- SCZenz 00:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose per Sean Black. While I respect ComputerJoe's contributions and value him and his work, I don't think that it would be appropriate for him to be placed as an administrator. Kuzaar 12:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose as per most of the above. What I've seen in the CJ project really seems to show somewhat poor judgment with respect to priorities. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose Per raised (and earlier noticed by myself) concerns. Garion96 (talk) 14:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose, does not appear to meet 1FA. - Mailer Diablo 14:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)Changed to neutral. - Mailer Diablo 16:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Surely I could fall under one of the latter two exceptions? Computerjoe's talk 15:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose, per most of the above (the Community Justice thing is the obvious problem). --Phronima 16:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Sean Black put it well, and answers to questions don't convince. Rob Church (talk) 19:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose per Sean. Dr Zak 19:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Fairly Strong Oppose For many of the reasons above. I was met with a fairly dismissive attitude when trying to talk about CJ's name and while his heart is in the right place I don't really get the idea that he understands the spirit of Wikipedia. I think there's some work to be done on his judgment...but I certainly believe other editors when they talk about his smarts so I'd expect a much different result down the road after he re-focuses a bit. Rx StrangeLove 20:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Very weak Oppose - dump the CJ/myspace nonsense and you'll have my vote. --Doc ask? 20:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I did resign as chairman, does that count :P Computerjoe's talk 20:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. I'm uneasy about this case. I get a sense of seeking status or validation, which is not what adminship should be for, and we've had problems in the past with people who have been a little too single-minded about getting it. There's a similar feel of trying to "construct a resume" for adminship, and yet taking the wrong step at every turn in the attempt to do so. I don't know what reasons there may be, or if such things are fundamentally difficult for Joe, in which case I sympathize, but think these privileges would be best not granted at this time. Joe, you're a valuable editor, we all need reminders about civility, and I don't doubt your good faith. Some of the tools are available without adminship, you seem to already be making use of them, let's leave it at that for now. --Michael Snow 21:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose per many of the comments above. BlankVerse 05:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose anyone involved in this pseudo-paramilitary "Community Justice" operation. --Cyde↔Weys 06:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose for the whole "community will take justice on its hands" that let to CJ (which may have changed focus now, but then I guess we don't need a second esperanza) -- Drini 11:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds like a criticism of CJ over me. CJ is not on trial, if you wish to attack my judgement, feel free as it would be a better ground for oppose. Computerjoe's talk 14:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not at all, given that you designed the orginal CJ, posted on talks about it, directed it for a long time, and invested so much of time, it's not hard to assume your wikibeliefs are similar to what CJ was and has become. Compare for instance Esperanza, which you're also a member, but I don't think esperanza's faults have anything to do with you. -- Drini 21:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose per Sean Black. Jkelly 22:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose. Answers are not very convincing and I feel like the last nomination was only a few weeks ago. :/ Royboycrashfan 04:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose - I've read WT:CJ, and that convinced me that Joe doesn't yet have enough of a grasp of how the policies and Dispute resolution systems work. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 10:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose per Sean Black. --Nick Boalch\talk 12:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose - candidate seems to think he has the right to tell other people how to base their votes (see statement after nomination). Cynical 21:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose - per Sean Black. I joined Community Justice just to try it out, and all I have noticed that they do is spam people.GeorgeMoney T·C 00:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Strong Oppose Has made very little contribs to WP except "Community Bureaucracy", as I call it. Boy, I hate it. I have never seen it ever do anything. Oh, and when Jayjg was as incivil to me as he was, and CJ is as great as it claims to be, then they should have done something about it. Raichu 15:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose per Sean Black. Also, I believe most people voting to support him are spurred by the fact he is the founder of their organisation.Ciraric 22:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC
    I hope people aren't just supporting because of my organisation. I have 6 months of experience, an excess of 6000 edits (2k of which are in the mainspace) and also I created WP:ER. Computerjoe's talk 09:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose. Change to oppose. Wikipedia:Civility noticeboard makes me question his judgement. Sorry. No retorts if possible, please, it's just my opinion. Also not very impressed by the answers. --kingboyk 10:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose. Just not ready right now. Aren't I Obscure? 16:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? I've got 6 months of experience, an excess of 6000 edits. Computerjoe's talk 16:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose (changed from Neutral). Is continuing to show misjudgement with the new 'Concordia' project, particularly the creation of Wikipedia:Civility noticeboard]. Potentially a good admin though, will happily support when he ceases to feel the need to be chairman of things. The Land 18:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Err... I resigned that post and I'm less active following the move to CCD. 's talk 19:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So you have. However, you're still making enough of the wrong calls for me to want to oppose you. The Land 19:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Surely wrong call is opinion. I have never, to my knowledge, breached a policy which would be a bad call. Computerjoe's talk 19:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you created the 'Civility noticeboard' in project space without any consensus. The letter of policy is not the important thing. The Land 19:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't require consensus to do this. You require consensus for something to become official, or a guideline, but not for things which are not intended to be. Computerjoe's talk 19:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)\[reply]
    Creating a 'noticeboard' in the main project space gives the impression of officialness. While I appreciate you were acting in good faith, out of desire to help the project and probably to put a lid on concern about Community Justice, someone more patient, more experienced in Wikipedia policy or less tied to projects like Concordia would not have done this or done so in this way. That's why I don't think that, in spite of your valuable contributions, you are ready to be an admin yet. The Land 19:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose. The various things that the candidate spends his (and others) time on are not the things they should be spent on. There is enough demonstration of a somewhat peculiar view of what Wiki is about that, for several months, I would not feel comfortable with this user having admin buttons, and the excersiability that comes with them. -Splashtalk 00:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose. User does not need administrative tools and would not use them in a manner consistent with writing an encyclopedia. Alphax τεχ 07:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Reluctant and weak oppose. This user treats AfDs like votes. --Andy123 12:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Vote withdrawn. --Andy123 13:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose. --Bhadani 13:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Oppose - If he became an admin, he would go around deleting peoples' subpages, because they are not WikiProjects. So if you had a subpage with a friends list, he would delete it. Also, because of his use of Personal Attacks. --GeorgeMoney T·C 15:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I would most certainly not. I wouldn't ever skip a policy. I would list it at WP:MFD, like I did with yours. Simply as I nominated it wasn't personal, nor was it against user sub-pages in general - just that one. Computerjoe's talk 15:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I still vote oppose. --GeorgeMoney T·C 16:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose per Kuzaar. -- Shizane talkcontribs 19:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oppose - I have real concerns over this editor's judgement. I am the person targetted by User:Nikitchenko for alleged incivility on Wikipedia:Civility noticeboard. My concerns are this;
    1. Computerjoe placed a post on my talk page stating A post regarding your civility is on WP:CN - there was no mention of Concordia, and as the page is named as the Wikipedia:Civility noticeboard I assumed it was an official reporting board and was being handled by sysops. As such when I saw replies (by the board officials) to Nikitchenko's claims such as "he needs a serious wikibreak before he gets kipped out of Esperanza" followed by "Yes, it seems discussions are taking place over this here." I began to draft a long explanation of the full picture and the tone in which the edits were made, as well as the history of personal attacks and what others discribed as wikistalking by Nikitchenko towards me. I did this because I thought I may be blocked by those responding to his claims. To discover that this board is not anything close to official nor has any administrative power has thoroughly frustrated me as I have worked on a full reply.
    2. The fact that Computerjoe said that my edits were uncivil in his reply shows he did not fully investigate the situation. Nikitchenko was certainly stalking me and has now been permanently banned. Not a person I'd like to see have real sysop powers after my experience. - Glen TC (Stollery) 20:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The diffs provided showed incivility. Computerjoe's talk 20:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Firm oppose ( moved from weak support) The creation of the civility noticeboard, and Joe's contributions thereto, invite too many questions with respect to his judgment, and I cannot say that I would be comfortable giving him the mop, etc., at this time. Joe 20:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Strong oppose, The creation of WP:CN, and involvement with WP:DN during this very RFA seems to indict either poor judgement about how to respond to the criticisms expressed here, or disregard thereof. Alai 23:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral. Not concerned enough to oppose, but do wonder whether such continued attention to WP:CJ is consistant with a requirement for admin tools. May reconsider before close. Rockpocket (talk) 07:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral, might change either way. Were he not involved in the CJ stuff I'd probably support. I can't bring my self to oppose at the minute purely because someone has tried to be helpful, if in a slightly misguided manner. However, I can't make up my mind about what the Community Justice project and all its associated bumf is really about - whether it indicates considerable community spirit, or something more worrying. The Land 13:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral, fails 1FA but has active contributions towards recent patrolling. - Mailer Diablo 16:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral I can't say no or yes. Any interactions I've had haven't been enough to sway me either way. — Nathan (talk) 21:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral Here's my problem. One half of me says that he's a great asset to the project, espeically in his WP:CJ promoting civility. The other half has the same question that other's posed: what really does CJ do? He's got the right motives, but I'm not sure about which way to vote. —Mets501talk 01:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral Sean Black and Marsh make very good points. I've met Joe before on CJ (which I will admit doesnt do much) and he was a pretty nice guy, but I'm not sure if he's admin material. Sorry Joe, maybe next time. -zappa.jake (talk) 22:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral leaning towards oppose this time. Not very impressed by the answers. --kingboyk 10:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Changed to oppose. --kingboyk 10:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral seems to be a good user... but CJ bothers me a little bit. ---J.S (t|c) 17:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Editor Review actually looks like a useful initiave, and demonstrates quite some insight into the wikicommunity. I'm just slightly worried about general maturity. See if you can convince me one way or the other. Kim Bruning 17:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments 

Username Computerjoe
Total edits 6444
Distinct pages edited 3608
Average edits/page 1.786
First edit 14:58, December 3, 2004
 
(main) 2061
Talk 178
User 594
User talk 1608
Image 79
Image talk 1
Template 108
Template talk 7
Help 1
Help talk 1
Category 25
Wikipedia 1367
Wikipedia talk 412
Portal 2
 G.He 23:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User's last 5000 edits.Voice-of-AllTalk 13:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

--Viewing contribution data for user Computerjoe (over the 5000 edit(s) shown on this page)-- (FAQ)
Time range: 112 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 13hr (UTC) -- 23, May, 2006
Oldest edit on: 16hr (UTC) -- 2, February, 2006
Overall edit summary use: Major edits: 75.88% Minor edits: 96.99%
Article edit summary use: Major article edits: 93.14% Minor article edits: 98.59%
Average edits per day (current): 44.59
Notable article edits (creation/expansion/rewrites/major sourcing): 1.32% (66)
Unique pages edited: 2657 | Average edits per page: 1.88 | Edits on top: 13.16%
Breakdown of all edits:
Significant edits (non-minor/reverts): 42.46% (2123 edit(s))
Minor edits (non-reverts): 25.54% (1277 edit(s))
Marked reverts: 15.74% (787 edit(s))
Unmarked edits: 16.26% (813 edit(s))
Edits by Wikipedia namespace:
Article: 30.9% (1545) | Article talk: 3.06% (153)
User: 9.08% (454) | User talk: 26.6% (1330)
Wikipedia: 19.44% (972) | Wikipedia talk: 7.74% (387)
Image: 0.9% (45)
Template: 1.6% (80)
Category: 0.48% (24)
Portal: 0% (0)
Help: 0.02% (1)
MediaWiki: 0% (0)
Other talk pages: 0.18% (9)
  • See Computerjoe's edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool.
  • Question to all oppose: Mainly the opposition is due to Computerjoe's involvement in WP:CJ. I cannot see the logic of these oppose votes. What does CJ have to do with the ability to use the tools? Does Computerjoe's dedication to CJ mean he will abuse these tools and not use them correctly? Just my little rant...but take this question seriously. Btw, one of the above said anyone in CJ can't be trusted with admin tools...to that I say wtf. At least explain.

--Osbus 21:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that most people personally dislike CJ, so are opposing on those grounds... I don't see how involvement in a group makes you an unfit candidate for adminship. Its almost as if CJ is a conspiracy that plans to take over the world. Hmm, CJ 12... Master of Puppets That's hot. 21:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CJ, while it has positive goals in principle, seems to be bureaucratic and democratic rather than loosely collaborative. It seems reasonable to infer that the organization's (recently-stepped-down) chairman espouses this manner of running things, and I have to say I think it is a very bad example for how Wikipedia should be run. Computerjoe's answers indicate that he doesn't really understand why any of this would be a problem, which I also take to be a bad sign. -- SCZenz 02:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me, having read Community Justice's talk page, that the people involved, though they have a valiant aim, demonstrate an insufficient understanding of the existing policies and dispute resolution procedures. An admin needs that understanding. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 10:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Computerjoe was and is personally very involved in CJ. Its very existence is, at least in part, his fault. When we oppose because CJ creeps us out, we're not just saying "CJ creeps us out", we're also saying "anybody involved in CJ has shown a massive hole in their judgment"; someone with such poor judgment should not be an admin. As such, I see nothing wrong with opposing Computerjoe on these grounds: having poor judgment, as evidenced by his involvement with CJ. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 23:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, he is a tragic hero. btw, Community Justice no longer exists, and I welcome you to look atConcordia.--Osbus 21:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I would continue cleaning-up, fixing vandalism, closing AfDs (but with the option to close deletes and one's not with an obvious consensus). I would also help with WP:RFI, WP:AIV, and WP:PAIN when I could.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I am proud of Wikipedia:Community Justice, which I've seen grow and grow, and also the Marske-by-the-Sea article, which I believe I have expanded to a fair length considering it is simply a village. I would also say I am proud of Wikipedia:Editor review, though it is controversial.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I have been involved in many disputes. I mediated on Talk:Neopets, as well as between InShaneee and another use off-wiki. I was involved in a dispute regarding the civility of the term listcruft and an abrupt statement I made on a AfD on WikiEn-L.
4. (From SCZenz) I'd like to hear your thoughts on Wikipedia:Community Justice. What is it doing, and what do you hope it will do? I note that you created the organization with a rather confrontational mission, and that mission has changed completely; can you comment on this a bit? Also, how do you respond to concerns that there is much more bureaucracy than action coming from the organization? Do you have plans, as chairman, to fix this? -- SCZenz 23:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The organisation aims to improve civility. I have to say there is too much bureaucracy, and I am trying to rectify this. When the organisation was created, it's goals differed - however we gradually moved. I believe we are still trying to find our role.

From Rob Church (talk):

5. "CJ" or "EA"?
I obviously like WP:CJ, as I made it, though I am finding it increasingly frustating. Members aren't participating, and too much time is being spent on bureaucracy. Currently, we have reformed the governance slightly to remove a few layers of this. I hope it grows into a successful organisation like ESP.
I admire how ESP works well, with programs and such, however I am too pre-occupied with WP:CJ to put much time in over there, though I put some in.
I personally think of CJ as a baby, and ESP as it's uncle. (by this I mean they are related, but not too closely and ESP is older)
6. Adminship. Political or technical?
I would not use adminship for political decisions, but merely clearing more backlogs and blocking troublemakers, as well as the ability to edit a protected page when necessary. Therefore, I am leaning towards technical. Personally, I stay away from debates such as userboxes, and I'd plan to do the same as an admin.
7. Dust?
No thank you. I'm dieting. Air will suffice :P
8. How do you feel about User:ShootJar/ProtectionProposal? ShortJason 23:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As with rollback privelages, I don't think the Wikipedia needs more types of editor. Protection as it is splits editors into 3 groups, sysop, anyone, and non-new logged in users. Also, I dislike the focus on editcountitis. Also, many editors reform, so perhaps a recent block would be better than any blocks. I've seen sysops block for let's say 10seconds for humour. Computerjoe's talk 09:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You endorse this sort of behaviour? robchurch | talk 22:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Computerjoe_3&oldid=1145854079"