Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JamieS93 2

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

JamieS93

Final: (107/8/4); closed as successful by Kingturtle at 18:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

JamieS93 (talk · contribs) – Jamie is a well-rounded editor who first began her editing stint in November 2007, initially working on articles relating to Christian music. She is patient, friendly, and civil - welcoming and offering assistance to editors who are unfamiliar with the workings of Wikipedia, and is proficient in explaining its policies and guidelines to newcomers.

She has collaborated with other editors in improving 4 articles to Good Article (GA) standards, and has created or substantially improved 20 articles to be featured on Did You Know? (DYK). Jamie is a very active reviewer in the DYK process, in particular vetting article candidates and helping to ensure that they meet the criteria to be on the Main Page. DYK could always use more admins in helping to update the DYK cycle, and I believe that Jamie is ready to take on this task alongside with the existing crew of volunteers. In addition, she is also noted for her participation in reviewing and polishing potential GA candidates from time to time.

How Jamie's first RfA ended up is something that no candidate should ever be subjected to. What truly impressed me was her ability to consider the opposes with good grace, and subsequently how she utilised them as valuable feedback in working on her perceived shortcomings of experience at that point of time. Jamie's continued dedication towards the project and self-development as an editor, in terms of proficiency, judgment and maturity of thought - shows that granting her this extra responsibility would be a wise choice for the project.

I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 16:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Co-nomination by Royalbroil

I have been fortunate to know Jamie from her earliest edits on Wikipedia. In fact, I welcomed her here (diff). I have been able to watch her editing abilities and demeanor, since we have worked on some of the same Christian music articles as part of WikiProject Christian music. She has been consistently good at explaining guidelines/policies and her viewpoint. Jamie has recently been getting questions from newer contributors who ask her the type of questions that admins and very experienced editors receive (1, 2). Our paths also frequently cross at Did You Know (DYK) and she has shown the same excellent abilities to work well with others. Jamie will be an asset to DYK; we can always use more help.

I want to comment on the concerns brought up in her failed first RFA. One is her age. I couldn't believe it when I found out that she was less than 18 years old. She doesn't act immature and I believe that someone's actions should be the basis for supporting or opposing. People mature at different rates; she must be one of the people who act mature earlier than others. I have seen plenty of admins under 18 who have made tremendous, mature contributions after getting the mop. Another concern was that she was highlighted for her mainspace contributions. She now has four GAs to her credit, two articles on hurricanes and two on music, but I don't think that her mainspace contributions should be the reason to give her the mop. A contributor doesn't need the mop to work in mainspace! The main reason to give her the mop is because she can do great help for DYK. Another concern was lack of experience. She has been working an additional 9 months since her RFA failed. During that time, she has gained experience with editing, working with others, and preparing DYK sets. I think it's time for her to get the mop. Royalbroil 04:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. Thanks to my nominators. :-) Jamie^☆S93 18:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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: As an administrator, I'd primarily work at Did You Know, where the tools would be very helpful in moving updates along or fixing errors in the protected queues. Many times I've seen the need for administrative DYK tasks to be done, so I would like to step up and help in this area now that I've had a lot of experience there. I would also keep an eye on WP:ERRORS and the edit requests category for protected pages, and handle some semi-protection requests at WP:RPP. I've had a good 13+ months of ongoing speedy deletion experience, using careful discretion with each tagging, and would like to help with those CAT:SD requests.

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

A: Some of my best contributions on Wikipedia would be my continued involvement with the Did You Know (DYK) process. My first article submission was in June, and since then I've been highly participating in approving hooks and organizing Main Page updates. I'm also fairly happy with my work in the mainspace, too. My most notable articles are not completely standout, but it's still an area where I feel competent. Since my last RfA I've had a few article improvements, including Ayiesha Woods, Give Me Your Eyes (GA), Hurricane Bud (2006) (GA), Tropical Storm Norma (2005), and Sanctus Real. I've also had 20 of my own created/expanded articles promoted at DYK, as mentioned in the nom statement.

I really have a heart for our new editors, and I believe helping people is a strength of mine. I truly love it whenever I have an opportunity to assist a newbie with the interworkings on Wikipedia. WP:BITE is something that I believe is important, although often ignored. Our guidelines can be confusing, and I've read the comments of many users off-wiki who felt unwelcome and got ticked off because their questions were left unanswered or responded to curtly. In my opinion, experienced editors should be kindly taking some time to provide explanations to new editors, or at least help to the best of their ability—that's what I strive to do.

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: My first RfA in August 2008 was really a conflict of its own. It became more drama-filled than I expected. I did my best to remain cool, though, and let the process run its course. Besides the RfA, I've had differences of opinion with others (i.e., 1). However, I have avoided fights or real conflicts by keeping down drama and not looking to pick fights. In the past I've handled difference of opinion by civilly discussing the issue with the editor(s). If there's a miscommunication, I try to explain the situation or at least my perspective. If somebody objects to my view or action, or consensus is contrary to my opinion, I'm willing to adapt to that. Whatever is for the best of Wikipedia in any given situation, I'll go with that. :)

Optional Question from User:I'm Spartacus!

4. I'll be honest with you, I've been keeping a little bit of an eye on you since your first RfA and was just thinking about looking at your edits closer for a potential nom. But I have few questions I would like to have answered A) what lessons did you learn from your first nom/RfA? B) What is the biggest difference between Jamie from August and the Jamie from today?

A. A) I really learned a lot from that experience. I didn't exactly rush into my last RfA, but I certainly didn't give it as much forethought. At that time, I didn't know as much about drama and how to watch for it. I wasn't as savvy and didn't see the little warning signs with accepting that nomination. Also, my lack of knowing some of the basic policy came to the surface, which caught me by surprise – that was kind of humbling. I now have learned more in-depth what people want to see, and this time I've done more self-examination, as my nominators have, too. I'm sure that I gained more from my RfA than what's coming to mind, but I know that I've often reflected on the experience and the comments I received.

B) One of the biggest differences I've seen in myself is the way I handle interactions with others. In past times I was less experienced and, to be honest, I was always kind of nervous with conflict and worried that I wasn't expressing myself correctly. In recent times, I've found myself to be more confident and calm when my action may be disputed, etc. I don't think that I did a bad job back then, per se, but I certainly wasn't as comfortable, as I see in retrospect. Recently, I feel a lot more calm in the face of somebody objecting to my action – problems don't faze me like they used to, and now I've found myself looking at an issue more calmly and just working towards resolving it. I wasn't about to delete the main page if my last RfA had passed, but I believe it was probably for the better that I didn't become an admin in August. I was just less experienced, period. I've also read many things since that time, and been involved in more discussions, which has caused me to be overall more knowledgeable in a variety of different ways. Jamie^☆S93 20:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Optional questions from Cunard

5a. I want to know how well you know the CSD criteria, so I've posed a couple questions about CSD. Your answers will also help other voters determine how good your CSD knowledge is. Would you speedy delete Emptoris, Inc. (permalink)? If so, under what criterion?

A: No, I would not speedy delete the article. While it is promotional, the article is not solely an advertisement, and there is other useful and neutral information in the article. If the article was obviously promotional, however (i.e., this recently-deleted page), it would qualify for the G11 criterion. Jamie^☆S93 23:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Follow up: Does the article meet A7? In other words, are there any sentences in the article that indicate that the company is important/notable and would exempt this article from speedy deletion? Cunard (talk) 01:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

A: The article doesn't qualify for A7 because it does give indication of the company's notability – particularily, the first sentence in the second paragraph stood out to me: "In January 2008, the company reported approximately 20% growth in revenues in FY 2008, a rate twice the industry average, and transactions with 145 companies over the course of the year, the vast majority with Global 2000 companies." I'm not an expert on the subject, so I'm not aware of how notable that is, but that statement alone would disqualify the article from speedy deletion. The CSD criteria asks for a pretty low standard of notability, not proving with reliable sources (these concerns should be taken to AfD), but rather giving some indication that the subject holds significance. This article passes that threshold, although additional research may show that it's still not notable for the WP:CORP notability standards. As I said, that kind of debate belongs at AfD, and speedy deletion is generally meant to root out the obvious cases. Jamie^☆S93 02:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

5b. Share verification bureau (permalink) is tagged for speedy deletion by an IP. The IP gives only the {{db}} tag but no criterion. Would you speedy delete the article? (Choose from: A7, G3, G11). Would your decision be different if a new-page patroller or an admin tagged it for deletion?

A: This is slightly more difficult. The article is severely non-neutral, but seeing through that, presents a topic that may have have potential - it might be marginally notable. G11 is meant for highly promotional articles, which is the opposite of this page. The subject's notability is definitely questionable, but not enough to be speedy deleted per A7. The G3 criterion is closer, but still not there because this is a real case with a company (per the court case link), instead of "vandalism/hoax". Deleting it as an attack page (G10) is a viable possibility, although I would not make that action myself. In conclusion, I don't think that this should be speedy deleted for any of the criteria, or even the possible {{db|reason}} possibility. Because this is not a BLP, which would present a more serious problem, the best option would be to take the article to AfD for reasons of notability, and if the article can be salvaged or not.

Would it make a difference who tagged the article? Partially, but not really. An IP address may be less experienced or an SPA who comes from a POV, but I'm not going to assume that. The point is, the plain {{db}} tag is best used with the reason parameter, and an experienced editor or admin should know about the template's customizing. So, if the editor provided no reason, or explanatory edit summary, there is no strong reason to delete it on-spot. I would decline the speedy tag, and bring the article to AfD after researching the topic some. That would be the safest option. Jamie^☆S93 12:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

5c. Should Cabal (software) be speedy deleted? (Choose from one or more of the following criteria: A7, G1, and G11).

A: This article I would not delete, as it seems alright and does not meet any of the criteria that you mentioned. A7 - this only applies to people/groups/companies/bands/clubs, and specifically does not cover the notability of software. The article is not an advertisement (G11), and deleting it per G1 is, well, very off the mark. In my view, CSD should not used to track down articles in an attempt to squeeze them into a certain category so they can be deleted ASAP. Looking at the CSD criteria, the "Cabal (software)" page is really in decent shape and is not worthy of on-sight deletion. If an article may qualify to be deleted, it should be either prodded or, if the case is not completely straightforward, taken to AfD. Jamie^☆S93 11:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

5d. You are patrolling CAT:CSD and find an unreferenced, new article tagged as {{db-attack}}. The article's first two sentences say, "XYZ is a governor in Estonia. He was thrown in jail for killing his wife and children." You do a Google search on this person, and you discover that XYZ is indeed a governor (and passes WP:BIO). However, you can find no sources to confirm whether or not he killed his family. The rest of the article consists of three sentences of neutral information about the governor's campaigns and his actions in office. Should the article be speedy deleted per WP:BLP?

A: I would not speedy delete the page, and instead salvage it. To clear any confusion, I'm not an inclusionist, and WP:BLP is a very important issue, but this does not call for deletion. I would decline the speedy deletion request and then remove the unsourced accusation. If the article meets the notability guidelines, as you mentioned, it should be alright to keep. I would also watch the article in case more libelous statements are added. Jamie^☆S93 23:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Good answer. I would have done the same. Cunard (talk) 01:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

5e. David Fuchs (talk · contribs) (Oppose #2) is unimpressed with your AfD rationales. In your previous RFA, Icewedge (talk · contribs) opposed you for always "jumping on the bandwagon". Looking through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 May 5 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 May 6, are there any AfDs (that do not have an obvious consensus) you might vote on? I'm looking for votes like this keep vote (which led to the nominator withdrawing the AfD discussion) or this delete vote (which expanded on the user's rationale for deletion instead of only citing the nominator's).

A: AfD is a good place to express original thought in a discussion about an article's quality, within the premise of guidelines and policy. However, I don't think that my participation there is completely necessary in order to work elsewhere in Wikipedia as an administrator. In my answer to the first question, I didn't mention anything about closing AfDs with admin tools – that's because I don't plan on working there. I haven't been participating in AfDs in recent times, because I've just naturally drifted into other areas. And whenever I return to AfD to make a comment or two, I tend to feel unfamiliar with the process there. I've come to a conclusion for myself: AfD just isn't my thing as much. Others will disagree on this point, each to his own opinion, but I don't believe that my lack of AfD participation is entirely pertinent to adminly duties elsewhere. I think I've gained some of that article-discussing experience from other venues where I feel more at home, such as the DYK nominations page. That's my view on the matter. Best, Jamie^☆S93 03:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Usually, AfD is not a "discussion about an article's quality". AfD is a discussion about an article's potential. Even if the article has no sources and is written using peacock words, the article may still be salvageable. The main question of most AfD discussions is: does the topic of the article meet WP:GNG? Since you're not planning on closing AfDs, I could care less about your AfD experience. However, since you are planning to be active at CAT:CSD, I hope you keep in mind an article's potential before hitting the delete button. Take an extra second to check an article's history, or another five seconds to do a Google/Google News search before sending it to the digital dustbin. Your work in CSD'ing articles for the past few months has been almost perfect. I hope you keep this up when you gain the sysop flag. Good luck, Cunard (talk) 05:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I feel like WP:POTENTIAL is one of the things that I hold most important. :-) Many admins and newpage patrollers take an article at face value, but I've never quite felt comfortable with that. Before tagging a band for A7, for instance, I oftentimes do a quick Google/News search. There might be notable facts or reliable sources about the subject, but they simple haven't been added to the article yet. In some cases, if I'm fairly sure of the band's notability, I'll add those sources proving notability and cleanup the article to save it from (speedy) deletion. That also helps with preventing newbies from feeling bitten, if they have genuinely written a salvageable article about a notable topic. I appreciate your input. Jamie^☆S93 11:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Questions from GlassCobra (partially stolen from Jennavecia)

6. Under what circumstances would you voluntarily give up your adminship/run for reconfirmation?

A. If I get the bit, I'll do my best to use it wisely and gain insight from others along the way. If push comes to shove and I feel that my trust has been lost, I would be wiling to give up adminship if that occurs. I don't have a self-made criteria, though, such as AOR from past times, but instead, intuition.

There is a very large step change between a questionable administrative action and being desysopped. It doesn't happen overnight. To put it simply, I am always open to others' opinions on my actions, and I believe that's the key to avoiding some of these further issues. That's what keeps me accountable. If an editor with good reason objects to something I did, I'll be more than willing to pause and discuss views, and consider repealing my decision. If this crescendoes to the next level: say, there are a few experienced editors who agree that I've been taking inappropriate admin actions around a certain topic. At that point, I'd stop using the tools in that area, and from there would discuss the issue with them. I believe that escalated problems, and having to give up adminship, is avoidable if an administrator keeps a smooth sail by remaining civil and welcoming to constructive criticism. In the end, though, I'm not clinging onto the tools, I just wish to help. :-) Jamie^☆S93 12:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

7. You see that another administrator has blocked an editor and you disagree with the block. What would you do?

A. This would probably depend on the individual situation. In general, I would first go to the blocking administrator and tell them my concerns/disagreement. Let's say that my reason for wanting to unblock the editor is something not too controversial, though, and easily re-blockable (i.e., "let's give this editor another chance"). In this case, I may just take the action myself – blocks are cheap and easily remade if the need arises. I would make sure to let the admin know of my decision. From there, I would carefully watch the situation and keep an eye on the editor. Please note, I don't plan on working with un/blocking, so the scenario that I may unblock the user myself probably wouldn't happen. :-) Jamie^☆S93 14:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

8. Please give a precise explanation of what you believe WP:BLP means. When should one ignore the policy?

A. I haven't clicked on WP:BLP today, so this is basically going by memory. Biographies of living people is one area in the mainspace that must be treated with extra sensitivity. All articles should follow the three core content policies: WP:NEU, WP:V, and WP:OR. The difference, however, is that people's current reputations are on the line. If there's an unsourced statement in a BLP, especially dubious or negative claims, it must be removed before references are found to back up the fact. BLPs require strong, reliable sourcing and no original conclusions and research. It is crucial that negative, or otherwise, facts be presented neutrally, both in wording and balance. These biographies need to be held at a stricter level, because the possible legal trouble is serious; we ask for a high standard with LP articles to fight off libel. Wikipedia is one of the top viewed websites worldwide, and there is so much potential for a few false claims to damage a living person.

WP:BLP should never be ignored or disregarded. This isn't a formatting style quibble, which could be occasionally ignored. It's a legal and responsibility issue, which should be respected (at all times). Jamie^☆S93 22:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

9a. What is your view of the current BLP situation? Do you believe there is a problem or do you believe that we are doing a sufficient job in maintaining our BLPs and protecting the subjects of them? If the former, please explain how significant you feel the problem is.

A: I don't think our BLPs are in a complete crisis, but still, the ever-present possibility of having libel and untruth lingering around articles about living persons is sometimes disheartening. I agree with the people who have introduced these BLP proposals (mentioned below) – in general, something needs to be done to get our mass of BLPs into better shape. However, I don't think the proposals really nail the "perfect" solution yet. Due to Wikipedia's being so highly viewed and referenced to, it is an ongoing risk of potential damage that could be done to an LP's reputation from a false tidbit somebody decided to write once. Still, with all that being said, I think we're doing okay with the high-profile bios (many have watchlisted them), and not so great with those more unknown pages which are subject to unsourced info. Again, this is not exactly a crisis, but I quite understand the people who pronounce that it is - we should try hard to maintain and watch for WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NEU. Those three are crucial, and it's detrimental when they are disregarded with a BLP. Jamie^☆S93 01:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

9b. What is your stance on each of the following for BLPs?

1. Flagged revisions

2. Flagged protection and patrolled revisions

3. Semi-protection (liberal use or protection for all)

A: I've been back and forth on these issues, and in the end, I must say that I don't hold any strong opinions about these proposals. I believe that they are all well-intentioned, and may work to one degree, but have the potential to go downhill and might not be a net positive. For instance, flagged revisions. That would really help to prevent new vandalism from appearing on BLP articles, sure, but one of our biggest issues is the existing information within those articles at the moment. Also, I'm afraid that the system of "flaggers" would pose a problem with hierarchy among editors - this we do not need to encourage. Another problem with flagged revs is the frequent misunderstandings between users that would arise; I'm afraid that we'd have a lot of turned-off newbies. Say a new user makes an acceptable change to an article, but someone of a different expertise doesn't understand the subject and decides not to promote the revision. If people feel like they are always being inspected and temporarily barred from helping the website, productivity would inevitably go down. In an ideal world, it might work nicely. However, I lean on the side of objecting to flagged revs.

In conclusion, though, I'm fine with it if any of these proposals get established. I don't strongly support or object to any of them, except for one: full use of semi-protection on BLPs. I tend to believe this is overkill and is not the way to go. Liberal use may be beneficial, however, as well as flagged protection. Still, whatever ends up happening, I'll probably keep helping on here just the same. Jamie^☆S93 01:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

9c. For BLP AFDs resulting in "no consensus", do you believe it is better to default to keep or default to delete? Why?

A: "Keep" is the current default for all discussions lacking consensus, and I believe it should stay that way. The "default" in a situation is typically the option that leaves things (the article) unchanged. However that would be the default only, and BLP AFDs should be otherwise viewed case-by-case, but generally following that default. For instance, plenty of biographies are AfD'd for non-notability; in these situations, changing the normal closure for "no consensus" is illogical. However, say a BLP is being nominated mostly for a neutrality/spam concern. About half of the editors in the discussion say "keep and cleanup for POV", and the other half think it's past the point of revival, saying "delete, no good revision" or "in violation of WP:BLP". In this kind of case, the even "no consensus" result should probably be "delete". Again, this is not the norm (lots of AfDs are for notability alone, and may not be in violation of WP:BLP), but it's these exceptions to the rule where admins have to apply their better judgement and sometimes make a slightly different decision. AfDs about BLPs should still default to keep, but viewed overall more carefully. Jamie^☆S93 01:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

9d. Imagining you're an admin, you go to close a BLP AFD on a marginally notable individual. Reading through the comments, you see that the subject of the article (identity verified through OTRS) has voiced concerns about false claims that have been made in the article, and wants it to be deleted. How much consideration, if any, do you give to their argument?

A: Given that the identity is proven, and this argument is valid, I would give strong consideration towards the person's concern. After all, the whole point of WP:BLP is to protect our individuals from potentially untrue or POV statements. In this case, it sounds like we're getting a confirmation of libel, straight from the horse's mouth. If this person was clearly notable per the AfD's consensus, and only had a couple of unsourced statements, I would instead choose to remove the sentences that were in violation of WP:BLP and ask the subject if there were any other issues present. However, under other conditions I believe I would delete the article. For instance, if the discussion lacked clear consensus and the person was only marginally notable, this would change my opinion. It pushes a "no consensus" to a certain "delete", since the individual says there are false claims - as I inferred in question 9c, this alone should cause the admin to close "no consensus" as delete. Jamie^☆S93 02:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

9e. So how do you feel about cool-down blocks? What about the Bush doctrine? Can you give an example of mutation increasing the information content of a genome? — CharlotteWebb 14:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

A: Hmm. I could offer this as an answer to the entire question, which covers all bases. Or, I could choose an alternate path - the first part of your question may actually deserve a serious response. ;) The current policy, which was derived from a consensus, states that cool down blocks should not be used. And I agree with that consensus. The sole purpose of blocks is to prevent damage on Wikipedia, whether it be to article content (vandalism, BLP violations, etc.) or editors (personal attacks, repeated incivility). When somebody is upset and getting a hot head, they shouldn't be blocked for that reason alone. If they haven't breached the etiquette policies, WP:NPA and WP:CIV, blocking them temporarily from editing will be viewed as a snide action and only serve to frustrate the editor further. Somebody losing their cool and causing some drama is not grounds for blocking, because no major damage is occurring (ANI may reach a dangerous length, however). If a hot-headed user gets blocked for attacking individual editors or groups of people after warnings, then it's not "cool down" anymore, but instead a preventative measure. Jamie^☆S93 13:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

You know, I'm tempted to oppose on the basis that none of the above questions "deserve a serious response". — CharlotteWebb 15:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Questions from User:Seddon

10 Did you ever vandalise wikipedia before coming a full time editor?

A: No, I never did, and certainly never since. I never had a thought to vandalize Wikipedia even before I knew much about the website. A couple of years back I remember seeing section edit buttons with curiosity, but felt vague concern and apprehension for the website - "what, I can actually "save" something on this page that I am reading, instantly?" I've actually never made anonymous edits, either (except by accident). Jamie^☆S93 02:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

11 Write a sentance with less than 17 words summing yourself up as an admin?

A: Aiming to operate in a sensible, civil manner, while placing readers first and happily helping newbies. There, 16 words. :-) Jamie^☆S93 02:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

12 What is your favourite piece of classical music and why?

A: I listen to a variety of styles, and classical compositions are not a predominant choice for me. Whenever I listen to classical music on the radio, however, I usually have no idea what the piece is called. Jamie^☆S93 02:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

13 An edit war breaks out, how do you deal with it? Please explore typical outcomes possible

A: Assuming that I'm not involved with it (I've never been in an edit war) or a related party myself, I usually don't voluntarily get involved with edit wars. However, recently I witnessed this case where a reverting dispute was breaking out. I viewed the situation and thought that if I were an administrator, I would fully protect the article for about a week, and tell the users at the talkpage that they must discuss the issue and reach a consensus before the article is unprotected again. And that's what an admin did soon afterward. Also, in an edit warring case, the next step would be to see if anybody violated (I presume, doing so without any warnings) or came close to 3RR - I would warn those respective users.

In general, if an edit war involves multiple autoconfirmed editors who make about two reverts each, then protecting the article for some time is the primary action to take. Another hypothetical case: one editor repeatedly adds biased content to an article, and two or more editors in good standing are on the contrary side, reverting his work. This is less of a content dispute (if it's clearly not neutral), but instead, a removal of POV material. This would not call for protecting the article itself. Instead, the user should either be warned about 3RR and rules about neutrality, or blocked temporarily if he has continued his actions after warning.

As my hypothetical situation mentions above, handling edit wars often involves blocking, if one or more of the involved editors have exceeded three reverts in 24 hours (or showing otherwise aggressive warring behavior). Some cases are more straightforward, and others are not. So, I would not readily jump into these disputes, especially in the beginning of my adminship run. I hope that answer is sufficient, since there are a lot of possibilities within the scope of the term "edit warring". Jamie^☆S93 00:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

14 Do you trust content dispute resolution on Wikipedia?

A:

Additional optional questions from Groomtech

15. Do you believe that Wikipedians have rights? If so, what will you do to uphold those rights?

A: In the broadest sense, yes. All Wikipedians have "rights" that you could simply label as human rights – these are inherent to the person's life (hopefully), and are unrelated to Wikipedia. On here we do have rules and guidelines, however; they protect individuals from giving or receiving bad conduct with one another, and ultimately attempt to keep this organization of articles running well. In the end, I respect others and will take (admin) actions that are reasonable and within consensus. Jamie^☆S93 15:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

---

General comments

RfAs for this user:

• Requests for adminship/JamieS93
• Requests for adminship/JamieS93 2

• Links for JamieS93: JamieS93 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for JamieS93 can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/JamieS93 before commenting.

Discussion

• Editing stats posted at the talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• I have a question for Cunard - could you clarify the usage of "choose from" in questions 5b and 5c, mainly 5b? It seems a bit restrictive if my answers are basically confined to choosing one of those specified criteria, unless I'm not understanding that right. Thanks, Jamie^☆S93 02:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • For those questions, "choose from" means that you are restricted to using the specified criteria to speedy delete the article. But if you think that another CSD criterion applies, feel free to list it in your answer. If you think that the article does not meet any of the CSD criteria, please explain why. Cunard (talk) 05:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
• I have been contacted by IMatthew (talk · contribs) privately, currently ill and not able to post, who wishes to express his support and good wishes, and is sad that he cannot do it himself. Just for the record more than anything. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 15:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for letting us know about that - his support has been accepted. :) Jamie^☆S93 02:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. A good candidate who I'm confident will use the tools wisely. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Per nomination. - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 18:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Support per nom's and as per last time. Dlohcierekim 18:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   switch to strong. Dlohcierekim 01:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

   I'm scratchin' my head wondering how a high schooler is more likely to go off the rails than an older person, at least without giving signs of it during the run up to the RFA. Will she block Mr. Wales? Delete the main page? Protect dozens of pages with the content, "nyaa, nyaa, nyaa, nyaa, nayaa"? I mean really. 3 little buttons that mean so much. If anything, the candidate has handled herself with quiet dignity and grace in this RFA. On a more general note, this is Wikipedia. We don't attract "average" people, or at least the average one's don't wrack up the editing record needed to run in the first place. So, she's an above average person/teenager/editor to begin with. I just don't see how she's gonna magically be able to wield the mop on birthday xx when she could not before. And I've seen no indication she is not now ready. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 22:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

   Struck above as I did not mean to be insensitive. Apologies. Dlohcierekim 23:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

4. Good work at DYK, not only reviewing nominations, but also preparing updates and alerting admins when an update's needed. Shubinator (talk) 18:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
5. Very good interactions lead me to believe that Jamie is a thoughtful and friendly user who will do well with extra tools. (Not to mention the four edit conflicts.)  GARDEN  18:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
6. JamieS93 is a wonderful user who I believe will make an excellent administrator. She should have passed RfA last time around. Acalamari 18:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
7. Of course. Mature, intelligent, dedicated; all traits I look for in admin candidates. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
8. Hell yes. Synergy 18:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
9. Support JamieS93 will make an awesome admin.--Unionhawk ^Talk 18:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
10. Support Good experience, seems like a good asset to Wikipedia. ⊕Assasin Joe ^talk 18:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
11. Support JamieS93 is both civil and helpful, and has the best interests of Wikipedia in mind. I'm glad to see she plans on working at CSD, and think she will be valuable there. All my interactions with her have been very positive and, while I'm too familiar with her namespace contributions, lead me to default support. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
12. Support per User:JamieS93/Awards and User:JamieS93/DYKs in addition to the candidate being a Good Article contributor who has never been blocked. Thus, candidate meets User:A_Nobody#RfA_Standards. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
13. Support No reservations at all. - Dank (formerly Dank55) (push to talk) 19:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
14. Should have passed last time, of course. Majorly talk 19:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
15. Support - Sufficient improvement since last RfA, I support this time around. — R² 19:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
16. Support Looks good to me. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
17. Support Net positive.--Giants27 ^T/C 19:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
18. Weak Support Satisfied with her answer to my question and her last RfA failed, in part, for actions outside of her control. Like I said, I've been watching her for a few months and thinking, "she just might be ready for a nom now."---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Moving to weak support: Jenna makes some valid arguments in the oppose section. AS for maturity, I do see signs of maturity throughout this and her last RfA. Last time her RfA was hampered by an over active defense---which ended up hurting Jamie as much as issues related to Jamie herself. Throughout the last RfA and this one, she has responded very positively and politely to the opposes---even commending them for their strength of argument. An immature person does not tell somebody that they made a strong argument against them---especially during the RfA. They may respond afterwards, but Jamie has shown the ability to listen to harsh criticism, take it in, and adapt. I think that is about as good of a sign of maturity as we are likely to find.I don't want to ressurect the dead, so keep in mind I'm commenting on Jamie's behavior, not others. As far as I'm concerned the behaviors involved by the other party have been dealt with and are in the past.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
19. Plus one.Keeper | 76 20:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
20. Strong support Of course! No second thought that Jamie will use the tools wisely, actively, and with solid judgement. A fine candidate. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
21. Support. The two things I opposed for last time (uninsightful bandwagoning AfD votes and some dubious AIV reports) seem to have been rectified - while neither of those areas are exactly high-activity ones for you, what you have done in the last few months there seems vastly improved and generally very good. I've seen no other red flags on a review of your contributions, so I have no reason to oppose this time! Best of luck. ~ mazca ^t|c 20:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
22. Support Same as last time. Come back on IRC! :P Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 20:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
23. Support Of course, Juliancolton sums it up.--Res2216firestar 20:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
24. Support — Jake Wartenberg // ER 20:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
25. Support; good answers to questions and an overall qualified candidate. From one young Wikipedia administrator to a prospective one, I'm confident that you'll do well. :-) One (talk) 20:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
26. Support. She's always impressed me by how assiduous she is. -- Mentifisto 21:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
27. Support again. Great contribs, very mature, net positive. LITTLEMOUNTAIN5 21:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
28. NW (Talk) ^{(How am I doing?)} 21:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
29. Support Maxim_(talk) 21:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
30. Weak Support. What? Me supporting when there are CSD issues? It's a strange world we live it apparently. Yes, the mistakes WSC mentions are stupid. As IS! says on the talk page, getting it right matters here more than otherwise because attack pages get deleted much faster and thus should not be mistagged. But I will have faith that you will learn from your mistakes and read up on the related essays on the topic to avoid such mistakes in future. The same goes for the G1 of course, that was simply incorrect (even if someone deleted it) but 6 months ago is long past and I doubt you will do it again after getting a mild "beating" for it here. But the last really declined speedy is from January (even if it was another incorrect G1[1] (looks more like a A7 to me or, as Bearian (talk · contribs) correctly guessed, a userpage created in article space)). So, Support for the reasons I had last time, for those above and for your overall great contributions. Weak for the concerns raised by WSC and the flaws in your grasp of CSD. Regards SoWhy 21:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

    Point taken, and yes, I am keeping this in mind (as I have with WSC's oppose). I remember that case from January – I wasn't watching close enough that it was a userpage created in the wrong namespace – and I really regretted placing a G1 on the page. With all areas of admin duty, I plan on starting slowly, especially the mistake-prone CSD area where I try to take much care. Your comments are appreciated. :-) Cheers, Jamie^☆S93 22:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

31. Support She seems very mature, and I see no reason she'd abuse the tools. Timmeh! 22:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
32. Support – Great user, fully trusted by me, will do finely. American Eagle (talk) 22:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
33. Support Good work. -download ׀ sign! 22:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
34. Support - CSD is not the be all and end all of adminship. The most important thing is that the user at hand learns from their mistakes, and I trust Jamie to do such. — neuro^(talk) 22:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
35. Strong Support as co-nom. Royalbroil 22:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
36. Strong Support per "prematurely mature", and per the noms. I've followed Jamie's progression for a bit now (silently), and have noticed an ability to listen, observe, and to use common sense and good judgment in her actions. I couldn't ask for more from anyone in the admin. corps. — Ched :  ?  23:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
37. Support You seem like a calm, mature person despite your age. A reasonable amount of time has past since your CSD mistakes so I'm pretty sure you've learned better since then. So far your answers to the questions have been good enough and they show how you've improved over time. Overall, a good candidate who would be a great help as an admin. Icestorm815 • Talk 00:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
38. Support Thingg^⊕⊗ 01:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
39. Icewedge (talk) 01:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
40. Support She seems a very good genuine person who'll be a credit to the project with a few more buttons at her disposal and I'm sure she'll ask for help from more experienced admins where needed at the start. Nick mallory (talk) 02:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
41. Support per Majorly. bibliomaniac15 03:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
42. Your'e a good user, and yes, you've made a few mistakes regarding CSD/AFD, but really. Haven't we all made a mistake before? If there's anyone on Wikipedia who has never made a mistake, we should promote them to admin just for that...wait no. Having never made a mistake is similar to never getting sick until a certain time, it will be worse when it does happen. Additionally, supporting to counteract the inevitable ageism vote. If you supported AnonDiss's RFA/B, no reason to oppose here because of age. Best, Steve Crossin ^Talk/_{Help us mediate!} 03:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
43. Support - I know Jamie since my newbiehood on WP. She is civil, helpful, and her article work is good. AdjustShift (talk) 03:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
44. Strong suppoert YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 03:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
45. Support ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 04:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
46. Support as a good contributor, helpful editor, and has proven she can learn from both adversity and mistakes. - Dravecky (talk) 05:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
47. Support per last time. Over the last 8 months, Jamie has grown even more experienced with Wikipedia and the DYK process. I enjoyed reading her answers to all of the questions, particularly 5a and 5e. As long as she uses discretion when deleting the articles at CAT:CSD, I have no reservations with her receiving the tools. Best of luck, Cunard (talk) 05:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
48. Strong Support - zomfg the first day back on Wiki from finals week and I see JamieS93 on here... OF COURSE I'll support! Awesome editor - would love to have to the admin staff. :) - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs} 07:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
49. Support Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 09:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
50. Support, same as last time. No evidence that user will abuse the tools, and by my observation a lot more mature and level-headed than a great many older editors here that should know better. Just the sort of characteristics that I want to see in an admin. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC).
51. Support No problems here. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 10:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
52. No reason not to. Master&Expert (Talk) 12:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
53. Support The famed "No reason not to" helps me here. Pmlinediter  ^Talk 15:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
54. Support. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
55. Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 17:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
56. Looks good and impressive answers to the speedy deletion questions. Davewild (talk) 17:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
57. Support. I would prefer Wikipedia be run as a meritocracy instead of a whatever-form-of-government-is-run-by-only-elders (I'm going to make up the term Presbytocracy). I think declining based on age as the only factor is almost as ridiculous as DougsTech's opposes. JamieS93 has improved drastically since her last RfA and would make a fine admin. Valley2city^‽ 18:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
58. Support – TheLeftorium 18:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
59. Support - This is an out of exam wikibreak support thanks to a pre-emptive entry on my watchlist. I think JamieS93 would make a good admin and that is why I supported his her [sorry, I keep forgetting your a girl] request last time, and I am doing so again this time. The opposition are not convincing per User:Camaron/Requests for adminship/Criteria#Non-criteria. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

    Minor correction, his her request---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

    Well spotted, it is good to see more girls becoming admins. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

60. Weak support. Some issues, but overall not too bad. Stifle (talk) 19:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
61. Support. I can see no validity in any of the oppose arguments, particularly not the one-liners. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 19:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
62. Support: Great work at DYK. Law _{type! snype?} 20:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
63. Support: Lucifer (Talk) 21:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
64. Support: If the worst that can be said about someone is "OMG she's still in high school", then she gets my vote.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
65. Strong support. Fully qualified candidate; I see no issues or concerns. I have reviewed all of the opposers' rationales carefully and they are uniformly and in some cases shockingly without any merit. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

    Would you care to be more specific? Ought you not to be commenting on the candidate, not on those whose honestly held opinions you consider to be "shocking"? --Malleus Fatuorum 00:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

    The first oppose, apparently based on the candidate's having allegedly speedy-tagged three blatantly speedyable articles with the wrong code numbers (e.g., as vandalism rather than attack, or as irredeemable nonsense rather than who-knows-what) seems to me a classic example of exalting form over substance; the second oppose, based partly on the candidate's having waited "only" eight months since her last RfA before running again, which is well over the time expected, and partly on her having closed an AfD as withdrawn after the nominator accepted a suggestion to merge, which was a correct close, seems unsupported; the fourth oppose, a rote incantation of the counterfactual statement that we already have too many administrators, is valueless; and the other opposes are based exclusively or primarily on the candidate's age, which is a poor basis for opposing (and disqualifying high schoolers from adminship would probably knock out 15% or so of the administrator corps). To avoid distraction, anyone should feel free to move this thread and any responses to talk. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

    I see. In that case I find your support far more shocking than any of the opposes. I quote from your own talk page: "... there are certain things that the younger editors should be especially careful about, and there are a few types of mistakes [sic] that they make more often than some other editors". --Malleus Fatuorum 01:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

    Newyorkbrad: Your statement hath a rounded and orbicular sound to it, and rings like unto bullion. For extra credit, consider capitalizing every word: I Have Reviewed All of the Opposers' Rationales Carefully And They Are Uniformly And in Some Cases Shockingly Without Any Merit.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 05:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

66. Strong Support. I supported last time, and I am happy to support this time! Best of luck :). Malinaccier (talk) 00:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
67. Support. My age related comment is from the other end of the spectrum: The editor's potential. Jamie has overcome the concerns of her first RfA, she exceeds the qualities that she looks for when commenting at the RfA of others, and she has earned the communities trust. --Preceding unsigned comment 01:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
68. support The candidate looks well rounded and ready. The main oppose concerns are apparently a) that they used what is arguably not the best CSD tag in a few cases and b) that the user is too young. In regard to a, I simply don't find the concern serious although I agree that it is important to tag possible attack pages as attack pages in preference to other CSD tags(since attack pages will get deleted faster). In regards to b- I dislike age based judgements of editors. If an editor appears to be mature enough then the editor likely is mature enough. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

    I've now struck my oppose, but it isn't just that attack pages will on average get quicker admin attention, its also the message communicated to whoever made that attack. Someone whose articles are being deleted as non-notable needs helpful advice, someone who keeps creating attack pages needs a block; and the templates that the CSD tagger is prompted to put on the author's talk page reflect that. ϢereSpielChequers 16:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

    I quite agree. Jamie^☆S93 16:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

    Strong Support Amazing. One of the best to-be admins I've seen. Good luck in your sysop work. ⊕Assasin Joe ^talk 04:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

    Seems unintentional and AGF, but duplicate !vote was recorded. Therefore indenting and striking. Valley2city^‽ 04:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

    Sorry, I didn't notice that :) ⊕Assasin Joe ^talk 14:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

    No problem, I've done it too. Valley2city^‽ 02:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

69. Support. good 'pedia builder Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
70. Strong Support as I think this editor would be an excellent asset as an admin. I see nothing which would indicate potential abuse of the tools, and a plethora of indicators the tools would be put to frequent and good use. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
71. Support - JamieS93 should have passed RFA last time, and would have done so but for circumstances beyond her control. Better late than never, I say. Robofish (talk) 19:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
72. Support - I did not !vote last time (but would have been neutral). I see a lot of good things from this editor and a real growth, especially with DYK's and rollback rights. Bearian (talk) 19:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
73. Support - per noms. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 21:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
74. Support - This is a support to off-set Friday's ageist !vote. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 21:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
75. Support Not likely to cause damage, or become an inconvenience through misuse of the tools. Impresive contribution record indicates solid knowledge of policy and clearly has addresed many concerns from RFA 1. Unlikely to be rude, bullying or think admins are in anyway "better" than non-admins. I'm tempted to support per "editor is female" to spite some of the oposition but I won't. Pedro :  Chat  21:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

    Actually I'd always be inclined to support female editors over their testosterone-fuelled male equivalents. I simply wish that the admin package didn't include the block button, as I tried to explain to JamieS93. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

    Some truth to what you say, I suppose. I'm reading a SF story in IASFM about a society that sends its women out to fight wars with the idea that they will be less blood thirsty and glory seeking. 00:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Dlohcierekim 00:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

76. Support Would make a great admin. Cheers, --ThoseStarsBurnLikeDiamonds stargaze 05:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
77. Support Looks like a reasonable person with a cool head and should make a good admin. I was planning on !!voting because of the age thing but I mulled over the recent adult drama events and concluded that I was wrong. That using age as a predictor of maturity is wrong in this setting. In addition to things like age there are other physical characteristics, intrinsic psychological and emotional factors, as well as socio-economic and cultural factors that determine the maturity level of a person and we, on wikipedia, have little, if any, access to these other characteristics. Therefore, while age may be a reasonable heuristic in the real world (such as when employing a person) where access to other information about a person is better (school grades, recommendation letters, face-to-face interviews), using age in an environment where all we can see of a person is the words they type unreasonably overweights that single factor. Far better to focus entirely on the typed words. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 15:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
78. Strong support. The oppose votes, if anything, lean me to support a bit more. Wizardman 16:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
79. Support No issues that stand out, and no negative memories. America69 (talk) 18:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
80. Support. Great contributions. Good understanding of policy. Finding out that she is a minor only increases my respect for her. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
81. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 23:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
82. Support Not the the BLP views are identical to my own opinions, but they are well within the bounds of consensus here. Incidentally, I have often downgraded what could be called attack pages to some lesser reason when deleting them, in order to WP:DENY the vandal satisfaction. DGG (talk) 23:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
83. Strong support Spotted at DYK. I don't think age is an issue. And I see many other familiar signatures from DYK assuming good faith as well. They can't all be wrong, can they? Also, I'm now beginning to consider maturity when faced with Doug as a good example of a decent admin in waiting... ;) --candle•wicke 23:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

    I really would encourage you to avoid such personal remarks. Others may be inclined to view them as an indicator of your own maturity. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

84. Strong support IMO maturity should be judged individually on content and not on basis of a number. I say this because I personally have met many high school students who are more mature and indeed more worldly than people twice and even three times their age. Jamie provides me with more than enough evidence to indicate that she is part of the future of wikipedia - and the evidence displayed in her edits (as opposed to her biological age) - particularly the front line work that DYK is, is more than enough to win my strong support.--VS ^talk 03:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
85. Support, not that familiar with the candidate, and I don't even like DYK as it exists, but the nom by Mailer Diablo and comments by various other supporters, particularly Newyorkbrad, convince me to support. Quite unconvinced by the opposes. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
86. Support - I do not care how old you are, because based on my review of your last 600-700 edits you seem very mature. People need not associate one's age with their level of maturity, as that can be very misleading. You seem to have a good understanding of policy and appear to work well with others, both very important qualities for an admin to have. You also do very good work in the Christian music area of the project. Good luck with the mop, not to jinx you, but this will clearly succeed. I trust you will be a very good admin. Landon1980 (talk) 06:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
87. Support I was surprised when I saw in the Oppose section that Jamie is a high school student. She sounds much more poised and mature than many people I know 10 years older. I think she will do well with the tools, and it is good to have a variety of ages, genders, and other diversities on the admin team. —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 06:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
88. Support This user has the experience, knowledge, maturity, and temperament to be a good administrator here. Deli nk (talk) 13:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
89. Support User has been around since Nov 2007 and track and contributions are good and see no concerns.User has used rollback very well and has substantial content contributins.Also as per Mailer Diablo and Newyorkbrad. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
90. Support, and always have supported from the start. — RyanCross (talk) 18:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
91. Strong Support - I have known Jamie since she joined Wikipedia, hardworking and trustworthy, and people that oppose based on age are immature themselves and should be taken to a secluded place and shot..enuf said!!.. good luck..--Warpath (talk) 02:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

    Do you know what the word "immature" means? It means making comments like you just did here, demonstrating that you have either never had access to a dictionary or that you are a complete dick. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

    I wonder if either comment is helpful? Please let Jamie's RfA be now - she deserves her chance without further provocation by anyone.--VS ^talk 03:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

    Yes Malleus, it takes one to know one, anyways, please take all this drama to my talkpage where I'll be more than happy to explain what I said above in complete detail :)..--Warpath (talk) 05:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

    It requires no explanation. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

92. Support - Royalbroil and Mailer? That's good enough for me (and DYK work). ~ Ameliorate! 08:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
93. Support No problems here. Razorflame 21:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
94. Support — JoJo • Talk • 23:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
95. A thousand times, yes! —Animum (talk) 00:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
96. Support: per above. South Bay (talk) 07:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
97. Strong Support. Good answers to questions. Very good content contributions too. This is the best candidate I've seen in a long time. Jamie is exactly what an admin should be. Caden ^{is cool} 08:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
98. Support Certainly. — Aitias // discussion 18:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
99. Strong support Worked with me in Spotlight, great article contributions evidenced by a number of DYKs, very good with new page patrolling/speedy deletion, extremely civil. I would have nominated her last time, but she did not canvass in the least bit (in fact, I didn't even know it was going on until later). Mm40 (talk) 20:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
100. 100 Support! Trustworthy editor with a thorough understanding of Wikipedia policy and practice. Great answers to the questions also. FlyingToaster 00:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
101. IT'S OVER 100!!! Trustworthy, I see no reason to oppose. Until It Sleeps 00:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
102. Support. Candidate will do fine with the tools. — Σxplicit 02:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
103. Support Why not? - Fastily (talk) 03:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
104. Fine. Prodego ^talk 04:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
105. Support: I thought the way that Jamie's first RfA went was a huge shame. I watched it develop and felt truly sorry that so much unnecessary drama was hauled in where it didn't belong. I did, however, think that Jamie handled it admirably. Since then, I've seen her around and at DYK and I'm confident that she will make an excellent admin. She is clearly intelligent, thoughtful, and dedicated. Maedin\^talk 08:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
106. Strong support: If I judge from the help she gave me at the René Dagron DYK she would be a very helpful, knowledgeable, enthusiastic and extremely polite admin. What else could one ask from an admin? Or from anyone for that matter? Dr.K. logos 14:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
107. Support. Quite ridiculously helpful, kind, knowledgeable, and resourceful. I have no doubt she'll use the tools wisely given the common sense and judgment evident throughout her contributions.   user:j    (aka justen)   16:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

:Weak Oppose I'm sorry Jamie, I really hate to oppose and rarely do so, but you did say that CAT:SD was one place where you were offering to wield the mop. These two attacks were both less than a months ago (you tagged the first as vandalism and the second as non-notable). Also I don't think that this was a G1 (though it was from last December). I'm not bothered by your age and I'm happy to see the clean block log, diverse contributions and civil talk page. But I don't think your CSD tagging is yet up to scratch. I'm sorry, and if this fails I hope to be able to support next time. ϢereSpielChequers 20:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion moved to talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Striking oppose per question answers, SoWhy and NewYorkBrad ϢereSpielChequers 16:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

1. The user has made strides in good content work, which I applaud, but reading through the previous RfA (which I do feel was derailed for some minor reasons) I'm not comfortable supporting when it's been (in my opinion) a relatively short period of time since the last RfA. In addition, my concerns about AfD's are not assuaged by a look at recent XfD activity. Non-admin closures to SNOW pages does not demonstrate judgement, poor or no, but this kind of close is definitely not what we need. The user has actually commented very little on AfDs, and when she does I am rather unimpressed with the rationales. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   Dear David, the candidate's last RFA is now just over 8 months ago, which is really quite a long gap between RFAs. Both of my RFAs took place in those intervening 8 months and I'm not the only editor who ran twice in that interval, so may I ask if are you really sure you want to oppose for that reason? ϢereSpielChequers 23:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   It's not the only reason, and if I wasn't sure I wouldn't register an oppose in the first place. Cheers. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

2. Evidence has not been presented to offset concerns from the first RFA, less than one year ago. This editor is still a young kid, so I'd want to see evidence of unusual maturity beyond her years. All I see here is a bunch of hand-waving and people claiming the first RFA was really awful. Friday (talk) 23:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   Have you any dif's showing the candidate is not able to use the tools constructively due to age or lack thereof? Cheers, Dlohcierekim 01:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

   With all due respect Friday, if there is a lot of "hand-waving", perhaps there's good reason for it. You ask for a evidence of unusual maturity, so I offer this diff from this very page. In my humble opinion, I believe this response is indicative of an editor that is rational enough to accept constructive criticism, intelligent enough to evaluate the input, strong enough to respond lucidly, and mature enough to proceed in a cautious and judicious manner. — Ched :  ?  02:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

   Friday, I think you are looking at this the wrong way — you are asking for evidence of unusual maturity, perhaps you should be looking for evidence of a lack of unusual maturity. I don't how defaulting to a negative assumption is best practise. — neuro^(talk) 03:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

   You've got that logically all backwards. Why would we assume the unusual? It's as sensible to assume that Jamie's unusually mature as it is to assume that I'm an unusually brilliant economist, or that I'm unusually obese, or that I've taken an unusual number of trips to outer space. We're opening a door to absurdity if we translate assume good faith to assume unusual things as long as they'd be pleasant assumptions. You can't argue with me, in fact -- you owe it to your own theory to assume that I'm an unusually brilliant logician (the reason, in fact, that I am a polyastral astronaut). After all, Neuro, there is but trifling evidence that I've never flown on the space shuttle. --JayHenry (talk) 04:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

   As you said, there is evidence that you've never been to outer space. On the other hand, there is evidence that Jamie is indeed abnormally mature for her age. As such, I'm not sure I understand your logic—but I could be completely missing the point. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

   JayHenry was saying that there was trifling evidence that he's never been to space to prove the logical fallacy that Neurolysis was introducing. Considering that Friday says he hasn't seen evidence that Jamie is unusually mature, if you could provide some of the evidence that you've mentioned, it may help to sway him. GlassCobra 05:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

   You have misunderstood me. No, I do not think that you are a polyastral astronaut. If you were to claim it, however, I would not doubt it without good reason. The mere fact that Jamie is going through RfA is enough a statement from Jamie for my liking, and it has me believing that she believes that is mature enough to handle the bit, and that is good enough for me — I have no reason to doubt her own judgment. — neuro^(talk) 08:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

   We get plenty of kids coming to run the gauntlet prematurely. Do you trust all their judgments simply because they've decided to come try for admin? Friday is saying that he has not seen evidence to show exceptional maturity. (Also, I'm the President of Sri Lanka. :P) GlassCobra 16:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

   My friends call me Barry. (And Jay's response is perfectly logical. We don't assume abnormality, it requires proof. The circular reasoning whereby Jamie is mature because she believes she is mature, because we trust her judgment because she trusts her judgment... Well, anyway. I don't oppose people for age reasons, but sometimes the people who protest such opposition don't do themselves favors.) Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 17:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

3. Oppose Too many administrators currently. ^{see here} --DougsTech (talk) 01:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

   Ok... not to sound harsh - but this is not a reason to oppose this candidate, but the RfA process. Can you provide a reason why this particular candidate, not just the process, should not become an administrator? - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs} 10:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

   DougsTech generally says this at every candidate's RfA. And the community has decided to stay quiet and leave him to his opinion. Jamie^☆S93 11:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

   Yeah and somebody has to oppose. Can you imagine the scandal that would erupt if a RfA passed with zero opposes?! The first question that would be raised would be "where was Doug"? ;) --candle•wicke 23:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   I just don't think this kind of comment is helpful; there's one RfA right now with no opposes, for instance. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   Ahem, no need to cite such rare examples. But I meant no harm and I apologise if it was misread that way. --candle•wicke 23:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   I think your comment was entirely fair. No candidate can be perfect. Unless the editor happens to be an omnipitent and omniscient being. Seddσn ^talk 03:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

   Yes, there are too many admins, but how many pf those actually care for the wiki?..answer, just a few dozen. Most people that come on WP just aspire to become admins and once they have achieved that, they leave, literally citing school, education, personal reasons which is sad because these are the same people that oppose policies of de-adminship based on inactivity and thus the wiki never moves forward and we end up with the same old expalantion that their is too many admins, when infact there is hardly any active.--Warpath (talk) 05:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

4. Sorry, but I can't support anyone still at high school. If there was a subset of buttons available to help you in your excellent work at DYK then I'd have no hesitation in supporting, but unfortunately there isn't. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

   What makes you think someone in high school would be less able to handle the tools than an adult? Timmeh! 20:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

   I suppose the thinking that we have had high schoolers for some time that are admins and at least one 'crat is discarded as passé. Oh well. Any dif's that might change my opinion of this particular user would be appreciated. Cheers. Dlohcierekim 20:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

   The same reason that I wouldn't lend a minor my car, no matter how good a driver they appeared to be. Please don't anyone else bother to pick up this so-called "agism" banner, it falls on deaf ears as far as I'm concerned. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind Dlohcierekim, simply stating my opinion. That's what this section's for isn't it? --Malleus Fatuorum 20:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

   That's a bad analogy IMO, but I'll play along. What if you had personally seen that minor drive safely every day for over a year? Timmeh! 22:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

   Malleus' concern is a valid one. I disagree with it, but it's valid nonetheless. If possible, could we keep any age-related discussion confined to the talk page? Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

   moving unseemliness to talk page. Dlohcierekim 01:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

5. Oppose per Friday and Malleus. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 21:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

   Oppose I cannot support candidates I know to be underage. This is primarily because admins are often privy to sensitive information regarding BLP matters, deleted revisions, OTRS, etc - the operative phrase is "personally identifiable information" in the Wikimedia privacy policy. For example, arbcom cannot have members who are minors. Skinwalker (talk) 00:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC) Struck my vote per NYB. Skinwalker (talk) 19:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

   FYI, administrator access to deleted revisions is specifically excluded from the age requirement under the applicable board resolution, and OTRS access does not result from administrator status. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

6. Oppose - User mentions DYK as one of their areas to work in. To be a DYK is a different set of attributes and requirements to be a CSD, AFD, etc, admin. You work on the mainpage and you select things that can have great ramifications. This requires a high level of maturity, an intimate understanding of the selection process, and an understanding of templates. I have no confidence that this user can perform the job adequately, and I cannot support in any way as they have expressed their intentions in this area and I think that it will be a harm to the Wiki. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

   And note - any admin can work at DYK, but not every admin would be good. I don't trust the user enough, especially with this being an area of expressed interest. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

7. Oppose - I have a few concerns. First, I think there's a bit of pandering in her answers. This is, of course, only my opinion, so don't jump my rump about it. In particular, the answers to my (asked by GlassCobra) BLP questions, seem noncommittal. That to me is probably my biggest concern. We need help in the area of BLP, not editors who are sort of indifferent about the whole thing. However, minors are not the best to be handing such sensitive matters anyway. The more time I spend as an admin, the more I realize just how many unseemly things come across my screen, and there is much I don't think Jamie would do well to handle. As others have justifiably pointed out, Jamie is young. Requests for examples of extraordinary maturity have been met with arguments, not diffs. Unfortunately, we can't assume all teenagers here are AnonymousDissidents. There has been too many examples of problematic admins with poor histories (in this RFA even) who make it obvious that caution is necessary when promoting young admins. Do I think Jamie would have the sort of meltdown that we've seen in some others? Not at all, but I don't feel that adminship would benefit Jamie. Net positive? Maybe for the project, but I think Jamie would be better off as an editor, not an admin. I have additional concerns regarding the areas she plans to work and the diffs posted above showing some questionable edits in those areas. لennavecia 15:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
8. Weak oppose - This RfA is on the road to success, so this weak oppose is intended mainly to get Jamie's attention -- to encourage her future improvement. I have "seen" Jamie at DYK and have been positively impressed by her productivity and good nature. I had no inkling that she was young, and in fact I find her to be far more mature in her behavior than many Wikipedians who are apparently a good deal older. I think she has demonstrated the personal maturity necessary for the admin role -- including the good judgment to stay away from matters she doesn't understand. I have, however, been vaguely bothered by an apparent high tolerance for bad writing, both in sources (for example, illustrated by this DKY nom, which she rescued nicely after the issue was discussed) and (as indicated by the fact that she has inserted them into hook sets) in poorly worded hooks nominated by others. Now that I know that she is young, I recognize this (particularly the tolerance for meaningless blather found in music reviews) as youthful inexperience, and I hope Jamie will recognize that this is an area for future growth. --Orlady (talk) 18:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

   Point taken. Thanks, Jamie^☆S93 19:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. As scanning through Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/JamieS93, I'm not convinced that the concern over the candidate's "maturity" issue is cleared this time. So I remain here for a while.--Caspian blue 22:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

   In all honesty, I think a fair amount of the concern last time stemmed from an overly vigorous defense that ended up painting Jamie in a negative light.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

2. Neutral Per Caspian blue. --YOWUZA Talk 2 me! 17:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Neutral per above. Nakon 06:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Neutral There is the odd issue raised in the oppose section that for the time being is holding me back from supporting but i get the feeling too many of those oppose votes are motivated by other reasons than the quality of the candidate or even thier age so I refuse to be seen as possibly being part of that so for the time being, neutral. Seddσn ^talk 03:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

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.