Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jasper Deng

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

Jasper Deng[edit]

Final (30/28/9); ended 21:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC) Jasper Deng (talk) 21:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination[edit]

Jasper Deng (talk · contribs) –

Nomination from TP

There is nothing that janitors hate to do more than clean up poop, but that's exactly what this candidate is willing to do for Wikipedia!

Kidding aside, I'd like to present Jasper Deng for the community's vetting and approval. Jasper has significant good article writing experience as well as with the FA process. He is aware of what good content is and the effort that it takes to build in. Jasper has over two years of heavy editing experience with over 6000 edits to article space alone.

As an Administrator candidate, Jasper has wide experience in WP:CSD. A cursory review of his tags shows no obvious errors in a broad spectrum of criteria. I saw very little use of the most controversial tags, but of the A7s, A1s, and G11s that I saw they were spot on. He's active with the edit filter: [1][2][3][4][5][6] (search), and he is active at WP:SPI: [7][8] (search), WP:AIV: [9][10] (and 782 more), and at WP:AFD by participating in over 89 discussions (search). On top of all of that, there is no fear of Jasper misunderstanding the tools and blocking Jimbo, because he is already an admin on Mediawiki.

Jasper's temperament is calm cool and collected. He has several barnstars for diplomacy and his approach has always been thoughtful and careful. In the past (over two years ago) he was accused of being bitey concerning COI tags, which eventually led to an unfortunate voluntary 1RR, however I haven't seen any of that behavior from Jasper recently. There is the obvious tagging of new users who have triggered the edit filter, vandalized, or otherwise need a good stern warning but nothing where I would say that Jasper Deng has scared off a potentially new editor. In fact, this diff to an editor with only 32 edits seems to show improvement in mannerisms toward new editors and here he is reaching out to a new editor. I don't think the 2 year old 1RR should still be a concern today.

So to sum up: 1) Good content writer, 2) Plenty of admin experience, 3) Civil. What more could Wikipedia want in an administrator? v/r - TP 02:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nom by Secret

It's been a while since I've done a co-nomination for any editor for the purpose of a RFA, but Jasper Deng is an exception. TParis nomination explains my feelings perfectly. Jasper has been registered in the project since 2008, and actively editing for over two years already. With articles he is an expert in Microsoft related systems, which he wrote several GAs and updated tons more with our reliable sourcing guidelines over the years. He's an active vandal fighter with nearly a 100% accuracy rate in WP:AIV, and is entrusted with the global rollback tool as well as edit filter manager. He is the main person behind the administrative guidelines of how to deal with the, IPv6 IP addresses when they were introduced back in June, an impressive feat for any editor. With his outstanding technical knowledge and the rather sharp decline of administrators over the past few years, Jasper Deng is probably one of the qualified editors for this role. Secret account 20:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nom by Dennis Brown

Rather than speak on his metrics (which are easy enough to view and impressive in their own right), I will just share my personal experiences with Jasper. He is an enthusiastic Wikipedian, unquestionably, and his focus has singularly been to improve the encyclopedia. His other work with the Foundation and larger community bears this out, and he has gained the trust of many editors on other projects as well. At its core, adminship is about clue and trust: knowing what to do, when to ask, when to act, and trusting that the candidate will act in the best interest of the encyclopedia instead of their own personal interests. On these points, Jasper passes with flying colors. I've had a number of off-wiki conversations with Jasper over the last year, found him to be properly cautious and highly inquisitive, seeking guidance from a number of editors before drawing a conclusion. To me, this is the sign of an admin that won't go off half-cocked and delete the front page, and one that will seek consensus rather than unilaterally jumping to conclusions. If we are to believe that adminship should be granted to anyone that has sufficient experience and has demonstrated a high level of trust and clue (and hopefully we do believe that), then Jasper is a perfect fit for the admin corp, and I'm hopeful the community will agree. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Yes, I accept.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping that my past could be forgiven, but since this has zero chance of succeeding, I am going to withdraw this. I thank all the participants, in all three of the !vote areas, for the feedback.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I intend to help with the combating of vandalism, including resolving backlogs at WP:AIV. Although my primary focus would be anti-vandalism, I also intend to help reduce backlogs at, in decreasing order of priority, SPI (only tasks that can be done by non-clerks), CSD, and RFPP. However, in the event of severe backlogs elsewhere, I may decide to lend a helping hand in other places too.
Being an administrator on MediaWiki.org and Wikidata, while also serving SWMT as a global rollbacker, I have experience in dealing with vandalism and spam on a global scale. A long time ago, I used to patrol for tagging CSDs and reverting vandalism on the English Wikipedia, although these days it is much less.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I put a lot of work into Windows Server 2012 in order to bring it to GA status. Even before I began the push to bring it to GA status, my vision of what "good" content looks like on Wikipedia substantially changed over the months from the time I originally submitted the article. I believe this is the best content I've produced so far, as the topic is a very broad one and it took me a lot of effort to convey the plethora of information in an effective way, keeping mindful of the intended target audience for this article.
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: In the past, I have previously been subject to ANI discussions concerning issues with WP:BITE. In most of those discussions, I had a hard time keeping in the stress I had accumulated from being subject to such discussions. Nowadays, though, I respond to criticism and disagreements in a far more relaxed manner. When someone disagrees with me, it signals that I need to discuss with them to help resolve the situation, and I have "lost" (I really try to avoid using this or "win" when referring to disputes. Wikipedia is not a battleground) a lot of content disputes recently. In most cases, I realized that I based my decisions on misunderstandings and I mentally thank those, regardless of experience or status, who correct me. As mentioned by TParis, I did subject myself to a voluntary 1RR restriction a long time ago, but after a few months, I decided to no longer follow that restriction because I felt it had served its purpose. Content disputes used to cause some stress for me, but now they rarely do. If I sense that a content dispute is going to be stressful, I may drop my case - no content dispute is worth stressing out over.
Some of you might notice that I was blocked for BLP violations in 2010. At the time, I was still new in terms of experience (having under 500 edits) and was not aware of BLP. I have come a long way from then, and although I do not actively work in BLPs, I now firmly believe in the importance of BLP and its origins, and if I were the blocking admin in that situation, I would've taken the same actions.
Additional questions from User:Retrolord
4. Surely you realise that an admin must be thorough and competent enough to detect copyvios. Could you explain your position regarding copyvios, what steps you take to identify them, and why you did not take these steps (if any) prior to nominating Windows Server 2012 for GA status. As a result of your failure to identify such copyvios in the article you nominated, you wasted the communities time and resources. Talk:Windows Server 2012/GA2 demonstrates this. Thankyou. ★★RetroLord★★ 06:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That was a rather subtle copyvio; had it been more obvious I would've immediately removed it. I personally believe that copyvios are not permissible under any situations. WP:NFCC carefully doles out when we can and can't use copyrighted media of any sort, but otherwise I believe respect of the copyrighter is important.
Did I do what I could've done? If I wanted to be thorough, I could've copied and pasted small bits of the article and searched each up on Google. However, I would consider such a check to be rather tedious, and therefore I instead chose to Google larger sections. In most cases, I found many websites doing the opposite, copying Wikipedia without giving proper attribution (as required by the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license that Wikipedia uses). Ultimately, though, it slipped below the radar for me in this case.
The above applies to existing articles. On the other hand, new articles that appear to have been obviously copied and pasted from somewhere (signs of that include extraneous non-wiki formatting) are highly suspicious and I normally will Google large pieces of text to find any duplicates online. Articles that are obviously entirely copyvios are eligible for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G12.
For images, if there are prominent brand names in an image, or if it is a screenshot of proprietary software, then it likely means that NFCC must be met for such images. The uploader should be allowed reasonable time to resolve such issues, but otherwise the image may fall under one or more of the criteria at WP:CSD#Files.
Thank you for your answer. I only asked as you "believe this is the best content" you have produced, and that you put in "a lot of effort", to help me get an informed opinion for my vote. ★★RetroLord★★ 07:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. It is stated in your nomination that you are a "good content writer" with "significant good article writing experience". Seeing as you have written two Good article in your time on wikipedia, would you agree with this statement that you have significant experience in this area?
I have significant, but not exemplary, experience in this area. Besides the 2 GAs, I have done several GA reviews for other articles. I have also written two other articles, but I do not believe that they are the hallmark of my ability to create content. Therefore, I'd say I'm a good but not perfect content writer.
6. Looking through your contributions, it seems you perform a lot of reverts to talk pages. Could you please summarize your contributions to wikipedia, and highlight any concentrated content creation? I am aware it is noted in the nomination that you have "significant experience" and your answer to question 2 highlights this fact, could you point out some other contributions, not in the areas of vandalism reverts or good articles?
My content creation came in several pulses separated by periods where I mainly do vandalism reverts and answer WP:EFFP reports. The vast majority of the content work I've done so far has been to the articles that eventually became GAs, but as I said above, I did write two other articles that I'm not particularly proud of (you can see them here), when I first started focusing more on content about a year or so ago. I am not particularly proud of those two articles because I considered them rather easy to write (since the layout is relatively simple).
As some people might note, I've written an extensive guide for IPv6 and its implications on Wikipedia - User:Jasper Deng/IPv6. I do not believe it's a contribution to the encyclopedia as much as it is me providing some guidance and advice to the editor community itself.
Additional question from Stalwart111
7. Having a look at your AFD stats, about a 1/3 of your delete votes were at AFDs where the article was eventually kept. Looking at the record itself, a good number of these were actually your nominations that ended up being closed as keep. The disclaimer, of course, is that most of those were in 2011 and you seem to have slowed since then (with regard to AFD) and your "accuracy" has improved. So my question is - what do you think you've learned since that period and how has it impacted your editing with regard to deletion policy in general? Stalwart111 13:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A: The biggest thing I learned was that if an article has problems, but is salvageable without a complete rewrite, it can be kept. A large number of my 2011 !votes were based on the article not meeting MOS or other guidelines, but nowadays I would only vote delete where the subject is not notable or the existing article is too difficult to form into an acceptable state without starting completely from scratch. I am not a big contributor to and don't have strong opinions on the deletion policy itself, but if a deletion would prevent the encyclopedia from being improved for the foreseeable future, I would oppose the deletion.
When I consider !voting on an AfD today, I first consider alternatives before deciding whether I should say delete or keep.
Sorry, I probably should have said, with regard to the application of deletion policy in general. But no matter, since you answered the broader question anyway. Thanks for taking the time to answer it. Stalwart111 05:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Inks.LWC
8. You participated in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/April Fools' Day (3rd nomination), voting for its deletion. While I appreciate that Wikipedia can and should be a fun place where jokes are tolerated, I share the sentiments of the closing admin that userspace is usually more appropriate than part of the Wikipedia namespace, and having a popular page marked with an AfD tag is probably not the best of ideas. Do you still agree that it was ok to participate in the AfD, or in hindsight, would you think it more appropriate to either not participate or do a non-admin speedy keep closure?
A: No, I do not believe I should ever participate in another April Fools' joke on a serious project like this one - joking is not OK if it proves to be disruptive. If I could turn the clock back, I would not have even touched any page related to April Fools' jokes - I would think that I have better things to do such as working on content. Besides, because Wikipedia is a very diverse community, it is very possible that not everyone knows about or wants to observe April Fools, and it is important, in my opinion, to respect that.
Additional questions from User:Retrolord
9. [11] Could you explain your actions here? Why did you think it was appropriate to pile on a 6 part question to a hopeless candidate? Could you also explain why "Quantitatively describe "ad nauseum"" is a suitable question for an RFA, given that you asked it to this candidate, and could you also answer that question?
I actually did not believe the candidate was completely hopeless, although eventually that proved to be the case. I asked the 6-part question in the hope that if he answered it well, I could change my !vote to support. I was trying to give the candidate a second chance to demonstrate his suitability, because although I ended up keeping my oppose (being not satisfied with the answers), I sincerely believed that his conduct at that RfA was probably not characteristic of his full and real self. However, a few months later it soon dawned on me that asking additional questions, no matter if I need the information or not, only would make the RfA more stressful than it could've been.
For the question about "ad nauseum", I was intending to see whether the candidate could decide when a discussion begins to lose productivity due to back-and-forth arguing. Could I have phrased it better? Yes - I believe I could have asked him "At what point do you believe it is not worth continuing a discussion?" instead. Was the question timed well? No - now I think of it, that was hardly the main issue at that RfA (the experience and the user's then-current conduct were the main issues leading to opposes).
In retrospect, today I would only ask a multi-part "case study" question when the candidate has a chance of succeeding. A question like the "ad nauseum" one, I realized a few months ago, only makes adminship a far bigger deal than it should be. I have not asked questions at RfAs recently, because the ones I have !voted on usually were clear in terms of making a decision to support or oppose. However, in the future I intend to focus on keeping my questions short and to the point, to make adminship as small of a deal as possible.
10. I noticed you asked this set of questions to a candidate at a previous RFA. Could you please answer them so as to give the community a sense of your understanding of policy? Please describe how you would handle the following situations, and the specific rationales you would give if your actions were challenged, including lengths of any blocks or protections:

a. You are arguing on an article talk page with a new editor, and you are discussing reliability of sources. The new editor constantly supports his argument with sources from academic websites.

b. A user's first edit is to make a page with this: "John Doe is a 10th-grader living in Example, Lorem in Ipsum. He is known to be the founder of Startup ABC (assume an article exists about Startup ABC and Startup ABC is notable).(a source from the official Facebook website of that startup)" If you decide to delete, please explain how you would respond to the user's inquiry about why.

c. You spot vandalism (warning: this is a trick question!) from an anonymous user, and this is the first offense.

d. You are brought to ANI by a user you are involved in a content dispute with along with several other new users, after you threaten to block him for WP:CIR. His title is "GabeMc calling me, Doe, and John 'incompetant'" and his comment is "On Talk:Lorem ipsum, this administrator has threatened to block us, calling us "incompetant" (citing a diff), and saying that we cannot discuss the article, even though Wikipedia:Consensus says so. I request that he be removed from his admin position."

e. You come across a ban discussion at ANI with ~20/30 in opposition/support. The discussion is 30,000 bytes long and has been going on for a week.

f. You find a four-way edit war on an article, with editors A and B reverting C and D in the pattern (A and B make initial edits) (C reverts B with "no consensus" as edit summary, D reverts A with "no source") (A reverts C with "THIS IS RIGHT! I THOUGHT WE TALKED ABOUT IT!!" in the edit summary, B reverts D with "Per (insert reliable source here)") (and so on). All editors are at 3RR and the last revert occured a few minutes ago.


General comments[edit]

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

Comment The candidate seems a bit power hungry, a large part of the Jasper's user page is dedicated to showing off his various user rights at different wikis. ★★RetroLord★★ 12:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow how you linked some userboxes and an interwiki matrix to "power hungry". Legoktm (talk) 12:52, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because a large part of his wikipedia activities seem to be geared towards gaining more and more userrights. If substantial parts of someone's user page are dedicated to showcasing their various rights, it leads me to believe they are power hungry. This, coupled with Reaper Eternal's concerns about mmmorpg style behaviour from Jasper also contribute to my beliefs. ★★RetroLord★★ 12:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Beat the nom support Jasper will be a huge asset to the project as an administrator. Legoktm (talk) 01:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Good countervandalism experience crosswiki, admin on Wikidata and MediaWiki so knows how to use the tools, global rollbacker. Also knows more about IPv6 than some of the CUs. --Rschen7754 01:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose because Legoktm beat my support. Kidding, support as nom.--v/r - TP 01:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support as co-nominator. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:40, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. What a bunch of brittle drama queens at that MSE FA. Gawd. Some time away really gives perspective.TCO (talk) 01:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Oh, yes. Clueful editor who will make a great admin. --regentspark (comment) 01:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Clear Support ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 01:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Spot random check of contributions looks good. Trust the judgement of the nominators. PaleAqua (talk) 02:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC) I had a little doubts based on some of the opposes below, but like the most recent answers and agree with Secret's and Dennis Brown's assessment below. PaleAqua (talk) 01:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - Definitely. ZappaOMati 02:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support About time. — ΛΧΣ21 02:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - When Dennis and TP agree on something, it's probably the right thing to do. (Secret doesn't hurt either) Go Phightins! 02:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Of course. TBrandley (what's up) 02:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Seems fine. Inka888 03:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Sure. Érico Wouters msg 03:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Whaddaya mean he's not an admin already? Tazerdadog (talk) 03:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Jasper would definitely be a net asset to the project. With IPv6 seeing more use, I have no doubt that he will be extremely helpful in this area. Elockid (Talk) 05:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Strongest support possible - I was considering doing a co-nom, but saw that there were three already and I have nothing left to say about him. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Pro Rzuwig► 11:37, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support —stay (sic)! 12:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support No cons for me, and many pros. A positive to Wikipedia already, and would do great with some extra tools. Vacation9 12:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support While I am very mindful of the opposes, and do not dismiss them, I was struck by a number of clueful comments made by the candidate over the past year while researching his contributions.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support A great editor who deserves the mop. Arctic Kangaroo 15:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  23. As co-nom and someone who is familiar with JD background, I do understand where the opposition comes from, and gave me a slight pause from supporting this more enthusiastically instead of a regular "nom-support". I gave it some thought however, and I still believe Jasper is a huge positive with the tools and I behind my decision of nominating him. Reaper Eternal oppose vote is partly correct, and like he said there is stuff I won't mention here being an off-wiki issue. It mostly regard this RFA however, which can prove this is not an OMG, I must get tools RFA. My experience with JD is a user who made a number of mistakes early on, but mainly because he was a rather enthusiastic newbie, which is quite common with vandal fighters, new page patrol, and so forth. But while most of those editors either burn out quick, or won't admit their mistakes, a select few starts to learn from their mistakes, learns how to have more patience and maturity, go and eventually they end up as some of our most respected editors in this project. Jasper Deng early actions reeks of the 2007 era in which that sort of crap was ignored by the community and most likely his first taste of administrative actions, vandal and new page patrolling and so forth comes from that era. Our discussion about this RFA convinced me that Jasper Deng is one of those editors, a person who matured drastically as he aged and got accustomed to the attitude changes throughout that time period. His technical ability shows someone who would further enhance the project if he gets the tool set, especially with IPv6, a subject that not many administrators are familiar with. His willingness to learn from his mistakes is something truly exceptional and if this doesn't succeed I know he would simply shrug this RFA and continue editing. I did saw the link RE gave about his "aim" of these tools, but that is a user subpage was formed rather early in his wikicareer (2011). One thing I do want to see is Jasper Deng to open up more about the background of this RFA to alleviate these concerns. Secret account 21:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You and I are in the same camp. If this was a year ago, I wouldn't have nom'ed him, but he has matured (and mellowed) and I think he is more interested in the good he can do than the feathers in his cap. Like I said in my nom, he is enthusiastic, and sometimes this comes across wrong, but regardless of how this RfA turns out, I know in my heart that Jasper wants to do things that benefit Wikipedia as a whole and is sincere in this desire. That means a lot to me. I just can't hold gruff comments last May and certainly not comments from 2011 against him here, even if others chose to. He isn't perfect, but he does listen and take advice on board, and that is a huge asset in my eyes. I respect the opposers, but I think they are overlooking the positive aspects that Jasper brings to the bit, and the positive changes that he has undergone in the last couple of years. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support as I do not hold the apparently prevailing belief that one must be perfect to be an admin. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 21:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Experienced, constructive, civil and clueful. The fact that the he wishes to work at AIV and RFPP is definitely a plus. ~ satellizer ~ talk ~ 23:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  26. --LlamaAl (talk) 01:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support, despite a few reservations (possible trigger-happiness being the most significant); what swung me this way is their thoughtful answers to the additional questions, which indicate maturity after earlier slips. Miniapolis 02:20, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support per Secret and Dennis Brown. No one is perfect, but their arguments for supporting him are enough to convince me to support. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support You're doing more than your share of work on the edit filter, especially the false positives page, where you have 551 edits as of today. Getting admin access would make your work there a lot more efficient, and if this RfA fails I sincerely hope you don't give up, and that come back to try again soon. —Soap— 03:47, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support - my only concerns related to some 2011 AFD stuff that didn't sit well with me. So I asked about it and Jasper seems to now have a good understanding of where he went wrong and how he might continue to improve moving forward. That's enough for me. Stalwart111 06:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Strong oppose. Absolutely not! In short, WP:MMORPG at its finest.
    Jasper Deng has been talking about his upcoming RFA in various Wikipedia-related IRC channels (such as #wikimedia-stewards connect) literally for months. He also talked a lot about how he wishes he could become a checkuser. User rights are things he has been after almost since the start of his editing career. He only had me delete that page and its associated talk page because I told him it would guarantee opposes in any RFAs. That page even had a résumé section, which once included, "I act like an administrator, have well over 4000 edits, most of them reverting vandalism, and participate in deletion discussions. I also tag many articles for speedy deletion each day and warn many users for username violations, in addition to participation at WP:WQA." Less than three days ago, he had the "admin someday" on his userpage, and he supported a block on another user citing desire to become an admin as one of the reasons while having that userbox on his very userpage here:
    "Moreover, his userpages on the Simple English Wikipedia and the English Wikinews say he wants to become admin there - this makes me believe he is not as interested in contributing to those projects as he is interested in collecting status there."
    Furthermore, I don't trust his judgment or maturity and can certainly see his help at WP:SPI being unnecessarily harsh on newbies. Sockpuppetry isn't the unforgivable sin that some of Jasper Deng's comments on IRC indicate he believes it is.
    As an additional note, he had his talkpage semiprotected up until this RFA, which makes him essentially unapproachable by newbies. He did have a non-autoconfirmed talkpage, but very few newbies will know how to use it. I do appreciate his request for unprotection half an hour ago, but it looks like it was done solely to avoid opposes on this RFA. He even writes, "I don't plan to run [for adminship] until next spring at the earliest, when I've accumulated more content work", indicating that he performed content work solely to buff his now-deleted wiki-résumé. When examining his interactions with newbies (i.e. this one), he gives terse and relatively unhelpful replies, further strengthening my concern that he will not do well when newbies complain about admin actions that he has taken. This conversation also does not instil me with confidence.
    He also appears to not understand edit warring: "...the definition of an edit war is any revert, regardless of whether you think you're right."
    The email discussed here was borderline block-shopping and gossip about Arcandam, who was justifiably annoyed at my revoking his rollback for edit warfare with it. Granted Arcandam's later actions resulted in a block, I don't think emailing the revoking admin citing WP:CIR was a wise course of action at all.
    There are other reasons for my oppose that I won't mention on-wiki.
    Taken together, especially when considering the MMORPGing, I fully oppose this candidacy. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, the deleted page is about as much as a userrights matrix plus admin someday userbox would have. Also, the user that he supported a block of is one of the crosswiki hat collectors that we have currently going from WMF site to WMF site. --Rschen7754 02:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not talking just the most recent version. I'm also fully aware that I will be alone down here. However, I cannot sit idly by when someone who in my eyes looks to be playing Wikipedia® comes along. Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, a bit harsh. But I really don't see the substance. As Rschen7754 said, the user page was less a "checkbox" than you make it out to be, and I did check older revisions. The user who wanted to be an admin on those other sites demonstrated a desire to have tools but no desire to actually help those projects; something that is not the case with Jasper. Email's are common place and in fact WP:CIR says it should not be pointed out to the user in question. As Fluffy said, the IRC stuff was just typical nerves. The content work stuff: he wanted to get the perspective of some of the big content writers before offering himself as a candidate for a position of trust. The conversation you link with Codename Lisa, which (unintentionally I am sure) gives the impression it's a newbie, also demonstrates some good interaction with the same user. These were two users who just cooperated to get an article to GA. One minor bad interaction between them doesn't negate their teamwork. I hate World of Wikicraft players as well, but I just think you've taken a lot of easily explained minor issues and made them into something bigger. Taking each on their individual merits, I just don't think this holds water. Just my opinion and I certainly respect yours.--v/r - TP 14:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I feel like a giant dick for writing this tl;dr rationale, but I feel they indicate that Jasper is not ready. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:49, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I really don't see the issue with "admin someday" userbox, or the removal of that template as soon as RFA was created. It is a common userbox, and many times RFA was formed and succeeded because of it. I recommend to cross that out, as that is no reason to oppose a candidate but I do respect some of your other concerns. Secret account 21:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I view that userbox and related ones as strongly indicative of power grabbing. Obviously, I would never oppose someone solely for displaying that userbox, but when I take it together with the other things I mentioned, I have to oppose per WP:MMORPG. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:49, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. above is concerning especially MMORRGing. also "good" article at Levitsky versus Marshall is reason enough for me to oppose. There is zero way that article can honestly and accurately be described as "good". -Nathan Johnson (talk) 03:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. OPPOSE, Jasper has been quite difficult and uncompromising in his interactions with myself. While conducting a GA review of one of his articles which contained plaigirism, he denied that it was present, thus delaying the review. If an editor cannot be bothered to check an article for plaigirism before nominating it for GA review, thus wasting the reviewers time, then I don't see how they can become an admin. Also, the concerns raised above are quite worrying. For those interested, Talk:Windows Server 2012/GA3 and Talk:Windows Server 2012/GA2 are the reviews in question. ★★RetroLord★★ 06:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The paragraph concerned [12] was not written by him. By the way, it's "plagiarism".--Razionale (talk) 15:49, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. Per concerns raised by Reaper Eternal. Widr (talk) 11:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. oppose. Nice but too much time at IRC and maturity concerns. Reaper Eternal raised serious concerns. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose, per review. Kierzek (talk) 13:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose per Reaper Eternal and Nathan Johnson. Kraxler (talk) 15:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose Jasper Deng seems too eager to get people banned, rather than taking the time to work with people to try to grow our editor base. Here's a few diffs from ANI: "I want to be the one who adds the Banned tag" (Feb 2012); "There's no ban, but we can create one right now" (May 2012 - this was in response to a stunningly inappropriate unilateral inappropriate undiscussed ban placed on a user by admin Raul654; Jasper failed to investigate very thoroughly or he would have seen that. Here is a link to the full thread; he then switches horses and proposes that Raul be desysopped); proposes yet another community ban (May 2012). These are from last year, but I still find them deeply concerning, and will not support for adminship. -- Dianna (talk) 17:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. Reaper Eternal raised some valid concerns so also Diana. Sorry. Salih (talk) 17:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose After looking of the candidate I wanted to support however the concerns raised by Reaper Eternal made my reconsider and Diannaa swung me into an oppose. John F. Lewis (talk) 19:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose I agree with Reaper Eternal. Dream Focus 19:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose Jasper has been clearly positioning themselves for a run at RFA for a long time and would therefore have been editing with that in mind. Despite that, I'm generally still left with the impression that they are not quite mature enough for the tools. Blocking and deletion requires a more thoughtful approach. Spartaz Humbug! 19:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose Unfortunately the plagiarism concerns from Retrolord and your position on banning from Dianna makes me uncertain about your readiness of having the tools. In addition the concerns brought up by Reaper Eternal makes me think that you are requesting adminship for the wrong reasons. Mike V • Talk 19:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose Reaper Eternal's comments give me no small amount of pause. --B (talk) 20:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose please ask me to do sysop actions for you instead of commanding me to do them. --Guerillero | My Talk 20:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose - I don't think Jasper has the necessary mentality or level of maturity for the bit. Keilana|Parlez ici 20:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose due to the issues that Reaper Eternal brought up above. SpencerT♦C 20:59, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Regretful oppose - There is no doubt that Jasper Deng has done an abundant amount of good work here and has exhibited a capacity for improvement over time, but Reaper Eternal has raised some serious concerns, prompting me to sample some of Jasper Deng's talk page interactions. There does seem to be a MMORPG theme to some of his interactions, for example here. I'm also concerned about what seems to be a lack of restraint in some cases, for example "It is typical for me to go to the brink of 3RR often. I never go beyond that.". After reviewing several pages of talk page comments and ANI posts, I'm left with the impression that Jasper Deng is knowledgeable about our policies and the culture, but may not yet quite have the wisdom to uphold the "spirit of the law" in challenging situations. There also seems to be a slight over eagerness to become an admin and use the ban hammer, as mentioned above and supported by a review of the history. I would certainly be open to support his future run at the bit, but I would like to see more content creation and less involvement in the day-to-day drama. - MrX 23:21, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "may not yet quite have the wisdom" Are you basing that judgement on those nearly two year old diffs you've shown? I have trouble understanding "not yet" when the evidence shown ignores over a year and a half of progress. If you look at the more recent diffs I've provided in my nom statement, you'll see a different approach.--v/r - TP 23:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it was based more on recent (2012-2013) history. The examples that I provided were the first two that jumped out at me in a random review, and then I looked further. It seems that 2011 was not his best year, but as I said, there has been marked improvement. A search of the ANI archives reveal a lot of block talk, and sometimes rather hastily so. This, combined with his previously stated aspirations for adminship give me pause. In a year or two, I'm sure I would have a different view. That said, I will review his contributions more carefully before the RfA closes, especially over the past year, and I'm open to having my mind changed. - MrX 00:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Regretful oppose - Jasper is a good user, but I strongly agree with Reaper Eternal. -- Cheers, Riley 02:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Regretful oppose — I have seen Jasper Deng's name around plenty of times, and to the best of my recollection, there was nothing in my observations that had caused me to distrust his judgment or doubt that he is in fact here to help out. I personally have no issues with anyone who actively aspires to be an administrator, and would be more than willing to support a candidate even if most of their credentials were acquired for the purposes of passing an RfA. I see no shame in wanting to be a sysop. But the concern that precludes my support at this time is Jasper Deng's apparent over-zealousness in supporting blocks or bans being enacted against other editors, as per Dianna's links above (for quick reference). Yes, if someone's activities remain problematic after being given enough chances, there comes a time when we must accept that they are simply not suited to edit Wikipedia. Some people just don't have the skillsets necessary to become productive contributors. But blocks and bans are never something to be excited about; barring obvious vandalism-only accounts where a block is like saying "haha, you've had your fun, now it's time to go find something else to do", a block on a good-faith contributor is something that will stay with them for long after it has been lifted or expired. A block, as well as a ban, leaves a permanent mark on someone's Wikipedia experience. It's like a weight on every positive contribution that they make afterwards, where their present activities are contrasted with whatever issues they have had in the past, rather than by their own merits. It's also an effective refutation of all the positive contributions that came beforehand. In other words, having a block or a ban in their record can carry a stigma forever. If not done with care, a block has the potential to leave valuable editors dispirited with the community, with its administrators, and with the climate of the site as a whole; even editors who have never been subjected to any sanctions can feel the chill effect, for it is palpable. It is easy, within the emotional limbo that is the internet, to forget that behind every signature, every logged edit, every misunderstanding is a human being with genuine feelings. A block or a ban against someone is not something to be happy about, it's something to accept as an inevitable aspect of maintaining the integrity of this site. It does not reflect well on our administrators when we have people amidst their ranks who cast aside even the perception of a nuanced approach for the sake of jeering alongside the crowd when someone is no longer welcome here. That, coupled with the links provided above by Reaper Eternal which demonstrate a terse approach to inexperienced users (another example here), leaves me unable to support Jasper Deng at this time. Kurtis (talk) 02:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh the last link I don't see a terse approach, and that editor isn't "inexperienced". He had over 11,000 edits before leaving the project because of an SPI case that is unrelated to this RFA. Secret account 03:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh... OK, so I thought it was kind of terse. I also know Electric Catfish, and his editing history demonstrates experience and policy knowledge. Just as an aside, I do not think that Jasper Deng is unsuited for adminship altogether, but just that I feel he is not ready at this time. Once he demonstrates a more nuanced approach to the bureaucracy, I'll be more than happy to support. Kurtis (talk) 15:00, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Another regretful Oppose. I'm very much opposed to authoritarianism here at Wikipedia, and I'm seeing a bit too much of it from Jasper Deng. People have already provided links to cases of his being too keen to ban people, and appearing to relish it. I'm also seeing too much of a confrontational approach to discussion with editors who make mistakes, and a tendency to take things personally sometimes. A number of the examples people have given appear to show a bit of an attitude of "The rules come first, and Wikipedia and its editors are here to serve them", when exactly the opposite is the truth. Having said all that, I'm impressed to see so much great work done here, and I accept that Jasper has improved dramatically since earlier days - but some of these worrying examples are within the past year, and even the past few months. So, to Jasper, I'd say carry on with the progress you are making, try to further curb your slightly excessive authoritarian zeal, and work on improving the way you interact with new editors (and remember that admins are here to serve them). I hope these words provide some constructive feedback, and if you run again when you can demonstrate that you have rectified the problems that have been raised, I expect I'll be able to support you. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 04:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I should add that I'm not too concerned about the "over-eagerness" to become an admin that some people are seeing - I have no doubt that Jasper's motives are the right ones. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose: Seems too eager for the tools, and being excited to add banned tags to a talk page is not a quality I want to see in an admin Ip mask (talk) 05:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    note: This is a first (and at the moment, only) edit by this account. — Ched :  ?  12:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC) [reply]
    note: Everyone with an account may participate at RFA. We assume Good faith, and unless you have a checkuser prove this person to be a sockpuppet, it would be suitable that this users vote be counted. ★★RetroLord★★ 12:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    responded on talk page. — Ched :  ?  12:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC) [reply]
    Account has been explained to a CheckUser. This is not a sock. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 18:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Regretful Oppose as per comments raised above and also emphasizing Reaper Eternal's comments. I do agree with RE's reasons on why this RfA should be opposed. Sorry Jasper. Mediran (t • c) 11:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Per Retrolord. Rcsprinter (yak) @ 11:53, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose - concerns raised by Reaper Eternal are depply...well, concerning. I do not feel I can trust this user with the tools. GiantSnowman 12:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose because of the concerns raised by Reaper Eternal, IRWolfie- (talk) 14:50, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose Inspite of the high esteem that I hold the co-noms and many of the supports, I must oppose based on the harsh and elitest tone in some of the exampled discussions above. Just not diplomatic enough. ```Buster Seven Talk 18:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose. Well, I was going to vote "Neutral" since I base my votes on interaction with the editor/user; however, after reading Reaper Eternal's opposition statement, I can definitely agree that I do not want an administrator who possesses such qualities. Wikipedia is not an MMORPG; if one wants to play an MMORPG, subscribe to one and play it. I'd rather there not be a risk of the integrity of Wikipedia being disrupted by a administrator who wants who has a risk of using the tools for the wrong purposes. Steel1943 (talk) 22:15, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Waiting here for the moment. I have many of the same concerns Reaper Eternal brings up about Jasper's tendency to snap-judgment and his apparent feeling that sanctions as a first step fix most everything. At the same time, I don't think Jasper is likely to go on a rampage, and otherwise his temperament mostly seems suitable to the job. The constant talking about an upcoming RFA got tiring, but I think that represents a fairly typical case of pre-RFA nerves, and a little bit of tone-deafness, more than it represents any unusually great power hunger. I'm going to be keeping my eye on this RFA in the next few days, hoping some questions or interactions give me a bit more evidence to work with to make a decision. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Placeholder more than neutral. I have a great deal of faith in the noms, but I do admit that much of the RE oppose is concerning. I wonder about the ticking off of boxes, and I'm not anxious to turn loose another cowboy admin. who's a bit trigger happy. — Ched :  ?  04:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I usually don't find myself down here. The opposes are strong indeed, but Jasper has also made huge benefits to the project. I don't want to take my stance until I see a few Q&A's (even then, I might stay down here for the rest of the RfA). Command and Conquer Expert! speak to me...review me... 05:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I've noticed the candidate around and generally have a good but aggressive impression. Q1 and Q3 leave me wanting details. (Compare TP's nomination.) WP:BITE is disturbing. Discussion with 28Bytes is a little troubling but was 2 years ago. The edit distribution is not what I want to see (talk+article is only 35 percent), but skewed can be OK for Q1-stated anti-vandal work. Candidate's AIV reports are through the roof at 784 (I'd be satisfied with just 50). AfD is delete heavy, main diagonal is weak, but info is too sparse/stale for a current read. In a year-old RfA, a clueless candidate is going down in flames (5 support/29 oppose/3 neutral), and Jasper Deng adds a question with six subparts.[13] What was he thinking? Where is the common sense? An additional question in the same diff asks the hopeless candidate to "Quantitatively describe 'ad nauseum'." Huh? Glrx (talk) 07:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    He's got heavy duty nominators, and what looks like a good record, but I'm taken aback by the opposes. Awaiting more info.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC) Moving to support.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral leaning toward oppose based on Ched's points above. The points raised by RE are very concerning to me. Intothatdarkness 14:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. While work in wiki is fairly good, first oppose by Reaper Eternal is a bit concerning, however not enough to warrant an oppose. Might reconsider pending your response to Oppose 1, should you choose to respond. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 16:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral, weakly leaning support. I'm actually not all that concerned about what Reaper Eternal brings up...who doesn't shine up their performance a little before a possible promotion? On the other hand, it does cause me hesitation, and the other concerns in the oppose section even more so. In the end, this will boil down for me to whether or not I think they will affect performance as an admin, which I rather doubt right now. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 19:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral Jasper Deng has been a perfectly acceptable admin over at Wikidata, but Wikidata has (I believe intentionally) set it's standards for RfA candidates at a lower bar than this project has. The behavioral traits that Reaper Eternal brought up -- the desire to grab onto more and more userrights and the over-importance of those userrights to the candidate -- are very real, and have led to what I would not call deeply troubling, but would still call questionable behavior over at Wikidata. While Jasper Deng is a nice person, and has proven to be capable, I still find him slightly impulsive, and think that some good would be done by his spacing out his acquisition of advanced permissions. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Ugh. We need more enthusiastic admins here. A user who says "GIMME ADMINBIT" but is perfect in every other way will always have my support, at least morally. However, I have concerns about this user still putting me here for now. Jasper would make a great admin, and all opposes seem based on his prep for adminship. So? I'd rather have someone who's been prepping for adminship than someone who just does a ton of content work and a little vandal fighting, wouldn't you? I'm torn, however, as I think Jasper may have gone too far... I'll probably move this like 100 times before we're done, so bear with me. In conclusion, Jasper=Great admin. Jasper=A bit too eager possibly. Eager=good most of the time in an admin. :) gwickwiretalkediting 03:05, 9 March 2013 (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/Jasper_Deng&oldid=1144429411"