Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jake Wartenberg

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


Jake Wartenberg[edit]

Final (151/1/1); Closed by Pakaran on 01:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Nomination[edit]

Jake Wartenberg (talk · contribs) – Jake Wartenberg has been registered since 2005, and actively editing since December 2008. In that time, he has integrated himself into many different areas of Wikipedia. He is an active and reliable clerk at sockpuppet investigations, with several hundred SPI-related edits. He has participated in several AfD discussions, totalling around 80. As a content contributor, Jake has contributed 15 DYKs and six featured pictures. Jake currently has 15081 edits, 42% of which are to the mainspace, and 602 patrolled new pages.

Adminship will enhance Jake's already good work in several areas. He is already comfortable with the blocking tool, with 250 edits to AIV, and the developed judgement to make blocks at SPI. With over 100 edits to template talk:DYK, the admin tools would be useful for DYK-related edits, including updates and image protections. A review of Jake's deleted contributions [admin only], and the well-reasoned comments at AfD, shows that he's comfortable with the the deletion process. Essentially, Jake is a good, hard-working editor, not in search of drama, who would make good use of the extra buttons. PeterSymonds (talk) 01:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Accepted with thanks. — Jake Wartenberg 01:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I plan on using the tools mostly at SPI, where I am a clerk. I also plan on working on the various admin backlogs and using the tools in my countervandalism and new pages patrol work. It will be helpful to be able to edit protected pages over at DYK.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I am most proud of the content that I've contributed, specifically my image work. (There is a nice gallery of it over here.) I have six featured images on the English Wikipedia. The one I like the most is this one, a restoration of a print of the Montana State Capitol (I'd like to thank Durova for helping me with the adjustment layers even though she didn't co-nominate the FPC). I'm also proud of the 15 articles I've written or helped write on that have been on the main page through DYK. In the project space I am most proud of my work at SPI. Also worth mention is my work as a reviewer at DYK, GA, and FPC.
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: I've mostly managed to steer clear of any serious drama or personal conflict; I can't say my editing has caused me too much stress in the past. I am used to reading through edit wars and POV battles to asses the likelihood of sockpuppetry, though, and having my userspace vandalized as a result of my countervandalism work.
Questions from Seddon
4. Write a sentance with less than 17 words summing yourself up as an admin?
A: I decided to write a haiku instead. I hope you can live with that.

It comes in handy
Though after some reflection
Not such a big deal

5. What is your favourite piece of classical music and why?
A: I worked on a production of Rigoletto a few months ago as a stage hand. I listened to the whole thing about 17 times, and the more I heard it, the more I liked it. There was no view of the subtitles from back stage, though :(
6. How deep does the rabbit hole go?
A: 42
Additional optional questions from Roux
7. What is your opinion of the new proposal at RFDA?
A: I definitely feel that administrators should be held accountable for their actions, and as an administrator I will be open to recall. I support the idea of a mandatory community desysoping process, and the new proposal looks quite good. I look forward to providing more specific input as the proposal moves forward.
8: What is your feeling on the ongoing concerns regarding administrator abuse? Do you agree or disagree that admins are often given a free pass on behaviour that would get new users and/or non-admins blocked? How would you address these problems?
A: This project is certainly not as egalitarian as it could (and should) be. On many occasions our more prolific editors do get away with things that less well known editors get blocked for. This is certainly detrimental to a collegial atmosphere, something far more important than how many FA's an individual has written. The realist in me believes that because we place a high priority on content as a community (as we should) things will always be this way to some extent, but the idealist in me certainly does not agree with the status quo. While I can't say I'll be making any high profile blocks any time soon I will do my best to provide input into community discussions with the above in mind.
Additional optional questions from Sphilbrick
9. I'm curious about your edit frequency. ~5k edits in Dec 08, another 5k in Jan 09, but then different level of activity subsequent. Any comments?
A: Countervandalsim work tends to produce an artificially high edit count. After those two months I actually started devoting more time to the project, but doing things like reviewing and creating content.
Additional optional question from Mitchazenia
10. What is your belief of the current state on Wikipedia and what do you think you can change in the future?
A: I think the best way to change things around here is to make your voice heard during RfCs and other discussions on policy changes. I mentioned some of the things I would like to see change in questions 7 and 8. One of the most important issues facing Wikipedia is our problems with BLP violations. I feel this is a systemic problem—something that just "pushing against the tide" won't solve.
Question from SlimVirgin
11. Jake, I have a concern about the big gap in your early edits. You made one edit in 2005, one in 2006, then began editing regularly in December 2008. My concern is with your second edit a keep comment at an AfD. Given that you hadn't edited for 11 months, and didn't edit again for almost three years, what exactly brought you to that page at that time? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 02:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A: Up until 2006 I used Wikipedia as an occasional resource, and made the odd edit anonymously. A friend of mine told me that the article of an organization he used to participate in was in danger of deletion, and urged me to "vote". I used the account I had created months ago, because I thought my opinion might be given more weight if I did. If I had known about our guidelines on meatpuppetry back in 2006 I wouldn't have done this, and looking back I think the notability of the article is marginal at best.
Thanks. Can you tell us which account asked you to take part in the AfD, and can you link to some of the IP edits you made? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 04:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, the individual I mentioned was a real life friend; I am not sure if he has an account or what his IP address might have been at the time. It was several years ago, after all. I can't find any IP edits, either. The latest of them would have been over eight months ago, and I only made them on occasion when typos or factual errors became evident as a result of using the encyclopedia as a resource.
I still have concerns about this, Jake. You made one edit in 2005, one in 2006, and then began editing properly in December 2008, just eight months ago. Your first edit, in March 2005, was to create a school stub. This was at a time when a debate was raging on Wikipedia about whether every school ought to have an article or not, and people were lining up as inclusionists or deletionists, while everyone else was staying out of it. Your second edit, in February 2006, was to vote keep in an AfD that I see a couple of the schools-inclusionists voted keep in too. You say you were asked to vote in this by a non-WP friend, and you used this account because otherwise you'd have had to use one of IP address you normally edited with, and you felt an account with one edit would have more credibility in an AfD that an IP address with a number of edits. You don't remember what the IP address was.
Your third edit was two years later, December 2008, when you started the vandalism fighting and sock investigations that you're now applying for RfA on the strength of. Can you see why that history looks problematic? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Question from Ling.Nut
12. How do you feel about "outing" Wikipedia editors by revealing their true-life info? What if any action should the community take against those guilty of it? Tks. Ling.Nut (talk) 07:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A: Outing is something that I think should be (and is) taken very seriously. Editors have been harassed and stalked in real life on multiple occasions, so we have every reason to believe that when an individual has their private information posted their personal safety is potentially being compromised. In the most serious cases I believe that the offending information should be removed and oversighted and that an immediate indefinite block is in order.
Additional optional questions from ThaddeusB
13. What is your opinion about notability as it relates to the inclusion/exclusion of content on Wikipedia? That is, what do you think an ideal Wikipedia would look like in terms of content? Do you feel that anything the meets the general notability guidelines should be allowed (excluding what Wikipedia is not type articles), or do you feel that some things aren't notable even if they have been covered in depth by multiple reliable sources? Are there any types of articles that you feel are automatically notable; that is, worthy of inclusion just by being verifiable without direct proof of in depth coverage in multiple reliable sources? (To be clear, I am looking for your personal opinion, and hopefully an insight to the way you think, not a restatement of current policy.)
A: I think it is very important to remember that we are here to serve our readers. When I vote at AfD I try not only to keep our policies in mind, but think about the "big picture"—are people going to find an article on this subject useful? Also, I don't feel that anything that meets the general notability guideline should be allowed; that is why we have guidelines like WP:MUSIC. Just because someone has some news coverage, for example, does not mean they belong here.
13a. Clarification question: Do you believe specific notability guidelines (such as WP:MUSIC) are intended to override the general ones?
A: No, I do not. Generally one looks for an article to meet both, but even if an article fails the more specific criteria it may still be notable under the general criteria.
14. I looked through about 20 of your 80 AfDs contributions and just about every single one was either "per somebody" or just "not notable" and most were also straight delete or straight keep votes when you chimed in. The instructions/advice at the AfD page say "Consider not participating if ... You agree with the consensus that has already been formed." As such, I am curious to learn why you felt the need to participate if you had nothing to add.
A: I can't say I agree that most of my contributions to AfD meet this description. I would encourage you to look at my later work, as I have come a long way since December. I can provide some examples. It is certainly possible, though, that I have made some unneeded contributions in that area or not formulated detailed enough rationales, and I am always looking for ways to improve. Thanks for the feedback.
Question from Ling.Nut
15. For the record, have you edited extensively under any other user names?
A: Nope.

General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

  • Concern. I find these questions inappropriate, what music do you like?, can you write a poem?, do you read Alice in Wonderland?. At another RfA the candidate was asked about his favorite toxin (it was Scotch). What's next?, how often do you have sex? Such questions are not only irrelevant, they are infringing on basic privacy rights, and candidates may be reluctant not to answer fearing being opposed simply for being unwilling to answer. Let's stop this trend. Power.corrupts (talk) 07:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Statement moved from above questions 4-6. NW (Talk) 14:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Emailed User Seddσn talk|WikimediaUK 14:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support[edit]
  1. Strong support, great user, clearly deserving. Wizardman 01:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support A fine contributor. Good luck, Jake! Pastor Theo (talk) 01:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong support - Finally! iMatthew talk at 01:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. My first interaction with Jake was sometime in January, and I remember asking him then when he was going to run for adminship. I was truly shocked when he said that he had only been around for about a month; with his knowledge of policy, even at that time, I thought he had been around for at least twelve. Whenever I have worked with Jake, – whether it be writing DYKs or cleaning out a backlog at SPI – I can only ever recall pleasant experiences. Jake would be a wonderful help to the project as an administrator, and I strongly support this RfA. NW (Talk) 01:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support as nominator. PeterSymonds (talk) 01:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support; this user is already an admin who just needs the +sysop flag. Good luck! –Juliancolton | Talk 01:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Excellent user. Triplestop x3 01:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support This RFA should have been sooner, and would have more than happily nomned the user myself. Clued up, active and drama free are the three qualities that should be seen in an admin, all of which are present in this editor. He will make a fine addition to the janitor ranks and will use the tools wisely. Ladies and gentleman I present to you Jake Wartenberg. Seddσn talk|WikimediaUK 01:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What do your questions really have to do with anything?--Gordonrox24 | Talk 01:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Replied via email. Seddσn talk|WikimediaUK 02:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support should be a net positive. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. SupportLooks great. No worries here.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 01:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support I first noticed this user very early this year, and everything I've seen has been full of clue, considerate, and aimed at improving the 'pedia. I don't recall ever directly interacting with Jake, but I had also wondered recently why he hadn't picked up the couple extra tools. I'm very glad to see this RFA, and I hope it goes through without a hitch. Best of luck Jake. — Ched :  ?  02:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support, good userCaspian blue 02:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support -- Soap Talk/Contributions 02:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Seeing as we are both SPI clerks, I will need to recuse as a crat here, but I must voice my support for Jake as someone with a considerable amount of clue and dedication to WP. MBisanz talk 02:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Nothing not to like in contribs, the strongest candidate I've reviewed in quite a while. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Tan | 39 02:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support but there should be more reviews at FAC and GAN. - Ottava Rima (talk) 02:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. Dekimasuよ! 02:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. Excellent editor all-around. Experienced and knowledgeable in many areas. More than qualified for adminship duties. -- Ϫ 03:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support wadester16 03:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. Absolutely. -FASTILY (TALK) 03:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support strong canidate. no worries at this time Ottawa4ever (talk) 03:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support - Tiptoety talk 04:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - Trustworthy user. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 04:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Stephen 05:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support - Per Seddon. J.delanoygabsadds 05:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support, has done nothing, recently, that would lead me to believe he would abuse the tools. Seems like a fine candidate, and a good person. –blurpeace (talk) 06:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Pile on Support ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Sensible user, does good work and will be a benefit to the project with the mop. I see nothing that should concern us. Regards SoWhy 08:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Thought he already was one. Stifle (talk) 08:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Strong Support Fine contributor. Aaroncrick (talk) 08:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Would be very good to have helping in the admin parts of SPI - an area regularly needing attention.  GARDEN  08:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. John Reaves 09:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Brandon (talk) 09:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Strong support - Would make a great administrator. :) — neuro(talk) 10:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. Heh, finally! Will be a fine admin! AtheWeatherman 12:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  37. At last? Of course. Will be a great admin. Pmlineditor  Talk 12:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Damn, late to the party. - Dank (push to talk) 12:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  39. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 12:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Theleftorium 13:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Strong support - I've been hoping that Jake would run for some time now. I'm glad the time has finally come. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs)help us! 13:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Decent work at DYK, very friendly. Shubinator (talk) 13:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Everything looks (more than) solid and I think your answer to question 8 was top-notch. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 14:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support An excellent and competant candidate --ponyo (talk) 15:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Per all of the above comments. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. Good contributions. Trustworthy. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support
    He's done good work at SSI, GA, and DYK,
    So I am very glad to see he's now on RfA.
    I'm sure we can promote him without making a mistake—
    But nothing rhymes with "Wartenberg", a fact that isn't jake.
    Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    One can form a partial rhyme
    As Parker did once in her prime
    When pointing out that Wartenberg
    While from the north, owns no carpetbag. Ironholds (talk) 16:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    When one creates a lolfail rhyme
    One's grey matter must be clogged with wine
    All our admins should have some zest
    We all must see, that he is the best
    So let us welcome, Jake Wartenberg
    into the cabal, the ruling Derg
    Seddσn talk|WikimediaUK 17:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Rhyming couplets,
    often flubbed, or met
    in the next line
    by the cousin rhyme
    rarely expose
    (as o'er oft on the nose)
    the singular wit and sign
    of a lyrical Wittgenstein;
    more often, alas, the scribe merely is
    a Polonian antagonist.
    → ROUX ₪ 02:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    To the theme of the hoedown:
    Mr. Wartenberg decided to take the dive
    To run for RfA, perhaps be eaten alive
    But oh, look above he's doing great this time
    Newyorkbrad is not the only arb who can rhyme.
    Wizardman 03:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Passels of poems and reams of rich rhymes
    Alliteration, inflection, intonation at times
    Brobdingnagian efforts by Brad-Wannabes
    All supporting one Jake; for whom each one agrees
    That despite unanimity from Mississippi to Murg
    A decent rhyme can't be found for that name "Wartenberg"! -- Avi (talk) 16:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    When supporting a fellow like Jake
    Please be sure that you make no mistake
    For unless you’ve misheard
    We can rhyme Wartenberg
    If you don’t mind a brief double take. Durova305 18:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I've done this before and I'll do it again
    RfA rap is becoming a trend,
    My level of patience is reaching it's end
    Weak rappers and MC's they try to pretend

    NYB's raps are SO-DIMM like my memory
    But mine are dynamic like a rendered entity
    'Pedia rappers try to act like they're a friend to me
    But I gotta go and bring the noise like Public Enemy
    People hate me cause I'm hot like the left sink tap
    But when Neurolysis in town I don't take none of this crap
    I'm sick of mediocre editors that can't rap none
    So when I come online I do my huggling with a handgun
    Bans? none. Maybe cause I'm just too handsome
    Walk straight down to ANI, take NYB for ransom
    His rhymes got no substance, they're sort of like a phantom
    A mediocre rapper that's just acting like he has some
    He has none - gotta set up an edit filter rule
    To catch this dunce before he shows himself to be a fool
    Cause every time I do this shit it feels rather cruel
    To take his scrawny ass back to the damn rap school

    And then comes Ironholds, his lines don't even rhyme,
    He missed it in 0AD and again he's missed the sign
    The sign is clear, your latter lines aren't even assonance!
    You're just lucky that I'm a motherfucking pacifist,
    And if that's not bad enough then here comes Seddon,
    He talks about zest, but rhymes sour as a lemon,
    Spit it out now before it gets bitter
    But with rhymes like that his rap career's down the shitter,
    And then comes Roux, like the last few,
    Their rhymes were weak and his are too
    He tries to be witty, it ends up shitty,
    But now, lets get down to the nitty gritty
    Scroll on down and Wizardman's up next,
    But I'm not impressed by his wall of text,
    He tries to diss NYB, but you can see he's buggin'
    Take a look at yourself, man, ya strugglin'!
    Then comes Avi, acting savvy,
    Acting cool but he comes on gabby,
    And you know his latter rhymes
    Will of course be proved wrong in time
    And then we have the image guru in the flesh,
    Acting cool and acting fresh,
    Yes I'm talking about Durova,
    Rhymes as ugly as a Vauxhall Nova

    Now before I go, good luck to Wartenberg,
    I hope I've done my job and taught these nerds
    Where their place is -- that was my job today
    Cause you know I own MCing at RfA

    — neuro(talk) 02:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That was dire. Ironholds (talk) 02:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Get your assonance in gear
    And don’t try messin’ with me here.
    This dude thinks he’s got the rhythm.
    All Neuro had was aneurysm.
    When you want to play the dozens
    Bring your brothers and your cousins
    ‘Cause you needed perfect pitch
    To solo duel the Wiki Witch.
    We all know this ain’t the ‘hood
    It’s just a website doing good
    And in case you haven’t heard
    We should all be called “You Nerd”.
    I’ll bet a joule and raise an erg
    That we sysop Wartenberg. Durova306 03:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Yes, a true rhyme does exist. Durova, check above, "Murg" rhymes with Wartenberg as well :-P -- Avi (talk) 17:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Are all of these poems supports, or are they just here because they're here? Until It Sleeps Wake me 11:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we should save a couple, especially Neuro's. :p ceranthor 13:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia's creative aspirations go down the triolet.
    Durova's words on Jake indeed ring true
    Adminship surely all can see ahead
    And no opposes, no dissent, has led
    To poetry, but poor, a boastful stew
    Of weakest rhymes, metres all left askew.
    And so, a thought came swiftly to my head:
    Durova's rhymes had best be left for dead,
    And higher words, a sonnet, placed in view.
    Durova, leave the rhymes to me, my dear:
    A better poet here will sing his praise
    As we all watch the votes, with rush like Zerg,
    Come pouring in to his support. Ne'er fear:
    For when, at last, have passed the seven days,
    Adminship, well-deserved, comes to Wartenberg.
     
    --Shoemaker's Holiday Over 197 FCs served, on 18:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC). I trust that ends this contest of rhyme, unless someone should care to try, say, a triolet?[reply]
    Done. A (fail) triolet to Jake Wartenberg
     
    The comments, here, to Wartenberg
    He’s qualified-FP, GA,
    Has knowledge like old Gutenberg
    The comments here: to Wartenberg
    His skills, his trust, both reach the Bürg
    The vandals, he will hold at bay,
    The comments here... To Wartenberg!
    He's qualified! FP... GA...
    Yeah, not the best iambic tetrameter, but this was done in a rush. Now let's have one in Trochaic octameter. Anyone? --Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There was a young Arb named Newyorkbrad
    Whose poems were all the time bad.
    At the next election,
    The voters' selection:
    "Please give full time to your rhyme fad."--Wehwalt (talk) 12:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support per Newyorkbrad. Nicely written. :-) King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Strong support, definitely. Not much else I can say, really. Good work all around. And per NYB. :-) JamieS93 be kind to newcomers 16:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support Great user, great contributions. Definite support :) Cheers, I'mperator 16:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support, no reason not to. Ironholds (talk) 16:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support Good work, good answers.--SPhilbrickT 17:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support – I cannot find too many other current non-admins, if any, that are more qualified to use the admin tools. MuZemike 17:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Yep! - Solid candidate. AdjustShift (talk) 17:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support per User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards as currently no one is opposing the candidate, the candidate has rollback (so some admin trusted him enough to give it to him), the candidate has over 15,000 edits and is thus experienced, the candidate has 16 DYKs and 6 FPs so he is here to contribute to content and thus does so effectively, two editors thought enough of the candidate to give him barnstars, and the candidate has never been blocked. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support no reason to think they'd misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Cliche #1. Nick (talk) 18:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support Great candidate. hmwitht 18:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support Great Track and see no Concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support Great work! LittleMountain5 19:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support, an excellent candidate, everything is good. --Taelus (talk) 19:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support Keepscases (talk) 20:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support Thingg⊕⊗ 20:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support Master&Expert (Talk) 21:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support Alan16 (talk) 21:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support -- Atamachat 21:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Strong Support - Reliable editor, interactions have all been good, everything looks great.--Res2216firestar 21:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Strong Support Jeni (talk) 21:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Heh! ceranthor 22:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Strong Support Until It Sleeps Wake me 23:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support Absolutely.--Giants27 (c|s) 23:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  72. User has a proven record and would serve well as an administrator. @harej 23:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support. It took me a second to realize Jake wasn't already a sysop. Take the tools, good sir! Vicenarian (Said · Done) 00:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Obvious Support Best of luck. GlassCobra 00:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  75. support JoshuaZ (talk) 00:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support Jake will be a fantastic sysop. TBH, I could have sworn he was one already. The Wordsmith(formerly known as Firestorm)Communicate 02:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support We have met the Admin... and he is Us. Benders Game 03:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support Possibly just on the basis of the haiku. Looks good. IronDuke 03:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  79. I don't see any problems. Malinaccier (talk) 04:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support. bibliomaniac15 04:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support - He wasn't already? Oren0 (talk) 06:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support Looks good to me! He could definitely use the tools. Airplaneman talk 07:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support Metzujan (talk) 09:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support There should be plenty other 'crats to close this, and from my work with Jake at WP:SPI, I am confident that he will not abuse the tools. (Note: shameless attampt at Bradmimicry above) -- Avi (talk) 16:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support. Hang on, so you telling me he wasn't an admin?! OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support, with annoyance. Prodego talk 16:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support pile-on. ThemFromSpace 17:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support--Cube lurker (talk) 17:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support per all of the above! Francium12 (talk) 17:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Clear Support. No feasible reasons to oppose, and candidate's responses demonstrate good temperament. --Matheuler 19:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support, Glowing. I am certain that Jake would be an excellent admin; He's a wonderful, polite editor. I've run into him now & again, mainly doing CVU stuff.. 𝕭𝖗𝔦𝔞𝔫𝕶𝔫𝔢𝔷 talk 21:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support, he'll do a fine job. -shirulashem(talk) 00:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support Excellent experiences with Jake at FPC. SpencerT♦Nominate! 01:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support An honorable knight to stand against the vandals. Dream Focus 03:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support -- Luk talk 12:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support Duh. youngamerican (wtf?) 13:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support Seen him around, no reason to oppose. Timmeh (review me) 15:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Strong support Nudging this one closer to WP:100. Combines all the traits we look for in a good admin. A great candidate for the tools. Durova305 18:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  99. One before WP:100 Support! One two three... 19:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Excellent user. Congratulations on 100 supports (I'm glad I forgot to support earlier!) Theleftorium 19:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Duplicate vote indented (#40): I'm afraid you didn't. :) Amalthea 19:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Aww, crap. :) Theleftorium 20:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Woot Protonk (talk) 20:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Support I was tempted to oppose because of the hideous amount of poetry... But anyway - an excellent user. Would only do good things with the tools. Alan16 (talk) 22:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Indent duplicate support; see current support #65. NW (Talk) 22:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I was about to do the same thing... Yeah Alan, you've already supported, specifically on support 65. Perhaps you might wish to put your current rationale up there? Until It Sleeps Wake me 22:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm... How'd I miss that? Alan16 (talk) 22:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Keepscases (talk) 22:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems you'd already voted, too (#62). — Jake Wartenberg 22:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool, I've started a trend... Alan16 (talk) 22:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, Theleftorium started it... — Jake Wartenberg 22:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Damn it. Anywho, good luck with this - not that you'll need it the way things are going (and rightly so). Alan16 (talk) 22:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support. No reason to think Jake will abuse the tools. Jayjg (talk) 23:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Was neutral before, but what the heck, let's just pile it on.--The LegendarySky Attacker 23:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support. I trust this editor.--ragesoss (talk) 00:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  104. There once was a man from Nantucket
    Whose Support rose as if on a rocket.
    This man, one Wartenberg,
    Is, it seems, not a jerk --
    Hope they give him a mop and a bucket. -- Y not? 00:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  105. I've no issues with JW at all. Long overdue, I'd say. fr33kman -simpleWP- 01:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  106. More than satisfied to support. Glad to see this is a "nice" rfa, free from the common nastiness. Though the hoedown above is a bit lame 9_9. Steve Crossin The clock is ticking.... 01:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Strong Support - Would make an awesome admin.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 03:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Strong Support - Definitely :) - Alison ❤ 06:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  109. miranda 07:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support The only concern is lack of audited content contributions, which I don't care about. Good luck with the mop. Aditya (talk) 10:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support Actually, he has several Featured pictures, all of which, I believe, are restorations, and hence well deserving of the "audited content" title. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 197 FCs served 10:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support - great candidate. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 10:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support Awesome candidate. Staxringold talkcontribs 13:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Strong candidacy. No obvious problems. AGK 13:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support just following the herd...·Maunus·ƛ· 13:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Per astute answer to Q6. –xenotalk 17:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support per nom. --John (talk) 18:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  118. I don't usually vote in RfAs for editors I don't know, but between the nominators' statement, the answers to the questions and the general consensus, I think it's safe to chip in here. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  119. support —DerHexer (Talk) 22:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support has clue. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 23:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  121. +S I no longer believe that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Ling.Nut (talk) 23:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support I have a feeling my vote won't make a big difference at this point :) SPLETTE :] How's my driving? 01:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support, agree with SPLETTE but since I'm here I'll report a lack of negative experiences with this user as well. No concerns. --candle•wicke 03:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support Seems like a good choice...Modernist (talk) 03:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Supportalicious Xavexgoem (talk) 03:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support. I have seen this user contributing positively in many parts of the encyclopedia.--Danaman5 (talk) 04:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  127.  Support Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Jake Wartenberg. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 05:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Strong Support. I think Jake would make an excellent admin. I've seen him around, and have been impressed by his work and interactions. Also, good job on the Featured Pictures. :) ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Nathan T 14:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Support per much of the above. Parsecboy (talk) 18:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Support Power.corrupts (talk) 19:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Support Jake has a sufficient edit history, sufficient clue level, and no blemishes on his recent record that I could find. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Support]]] One of those "He isn't already an admin?" moments. Great users, good history, only remember positive interactions. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Support. No concerns. Lara 04:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Support Shimgray | talk | 15:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Support FlowerpotmaN·(t) 18:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Support Hell yes. I can't think of anyone else more qualified for the job. Shappy talk 19:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Strong Support--David - (Wikipedia Vandal Fighter). 22:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Strong candidate: he'll be fine as an administrator. Acalamari 23:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Support I am voting as the other arbs have done out of consensus, so we don't look like a fractured committee. Just kidding. Should be fine. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Support. No problems at all. — Σxplicit 05:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Support Piling on. Use the tools well. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 05:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  143. I'm in the company of lunatics... —Dark talk 10:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And yet you stay!--Wehwalt (talk) 11:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed I am one of these lunatics. —Dark talk 11:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Support ...although I feel I'm unfairly piling on here :-P (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Strong Support - Hell, I thought he already was an admin. Give this guy a mop already. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 12:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Support No issues I see. Good luck, although at this point, you really don't need it! =) America69 (talk) 18:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  147. SupportPer above. Yes! Most defiantly! Although the song above scares me. (You know I'm kidding, right?)Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 20:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Shii (tock) 22:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Support No problems here. Rodhullandemu 23:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Support Lack of obvious problems and less importantly, lack of opposition/neutrals ;) Alexfusco5 23:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Pile-on —Animum (talk) 01:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
Note - I moved a meta-discussion here to the talk page - Wikidemon (talk) 16:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose. I suspect Jake is the sockpuppet of a previous user, possibly a desysopped one. See some of my reasoning here. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness to Jake, I'd like to add here that I've retracted this concern and I've apologized to him for the mistake. [1] SlimVirgin talk|contribs 07:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
Reviewing Jake's contributions I was a little concerned about the lack of audited content and the fact tht all of his contributions seem to have been made in the last 10 months. thats a little too short a time for my taste, but as he otherwise looks like an excellent candidate I am not going to oppose.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure enough, Jake does not contribute to featured articles like you, me, or many other editors. However, he does know the MOS and content policy, as demonstrated by the articles on his userpage. Please read over the articles, they are all short, but good for covering reclusive topics. (@Jake) Perhaps he could expand them more, if at all possible? ceranthor 15:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to support#He may be a knowledgable editor but I am not quite convinced at this time.--The LegendarySky Attacker 23:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I am recusing myself from this RfA due to my blocking of one of the participants for their behavior here. That being said I do support the nominee in spirit, if not in !vote. Chillum 00:52, 24 August 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Jake_Wartenberg&oldid=1147981916"