Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jc3s5h

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

Jc3s5h

Final (38/30/8); ended 08:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC) - ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 08:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Nomination

Jc3s5h (talk · contribs) – I have been using the Jc3s5h id since March 2009 and had been using my real name for nearly four three years before then. I would like to contribute by using admin tools when appropriate, especially in the area of potential copyright violation. My former work as a developer of integrated circuit hardware and supporting software lead to some subtle discussions of copyright with intellectual property lawyers, just as free software was becoming available on the web. I believe those experiences will be helpful in copyright cases. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC) corrected 16:31, 13 August 2010.

Questions for the candidate

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 concentrate on copyright matters, as explained above. I would also deal with disputes that arise on my watch list. Since I have greater interest and knowledge in the articles I watch, I will be better able to distinguish genuine content disputes (which are not subject to administrator action) from edits that superficially seem to have meaning but are actually nonsense. However, I would avoid topics or editors I have strong feelings about when using admin tools.

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

A: I think my best work can be found at the list of articles I overhauled and the list of images I created. They illustrate attention to detail and a willingness to search through publications to find real support for statements in articles.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I have been repeatedly reporting sockpuppets of User:Vote (X) for Change. I have dealt with it by reporting problems on the appropriate noticeboard and reverting edits when I was certain the IP was acting as a meat/sockpuppet. In other instances, when IPs from the relevant geographic area were editing the topics in question, but the content of the edits was not typical of Vote..., I took no action. In view of the longstanding struggle with Vote..., I would leave it to other administrators to use admin tools in relation to this particular user in the future.

I believe that when Wikipedia policy, guidelines, or template instructions state that all or part of Wikipedia adheres to an external standard (for example, ISO 8601) that Wikipedia should actually adhere, or else remove any reference to the standard. A few users claim I am too fussy about this, and seem to think it is OK to loosely apply a standard. In the future, I will continue to point out any inaccurate claims of standards adherence. There is hardly any chance this topic would call for the use of admin tools.

Additional optional question from Beetstra

4. What are the Local spam blacklist and the Meta spam blacklist, what are they for, and which are the (core) policies and guidelines that they relate to. How should this functionality be used (also in conjunction with the Local Spam-whitelist and/or XLinkBot)? What would you look at if you were (to handle a request) to blacklist an abused site (I'm using the term 'abused site' with he aim to span more than plain spam)? And what would you look at when you were (to handle a request) to whitelist a specific link on a blacklisted domain or (to handle a request) to de-blacklist the whole domain?

A: From a mechanics point of view, I understand that one must be a meta administrator to make changes to the MediaWiki lists, while a Wikipedia administrator may change the local lists. Since I am not a meta admin, I would have to refer matters that are properly addressed on the meta lists to a meta admin.

The meta lists affect all the wikis maintained by Wikimedia foundation, and so are most appropriate for sites that are being spammed on multiple projects (in addition to meeting other criteria). The local blacklist would be most appropriate for spamming that mostly affects Wikpedia, is widespread, and comes from a variety of IPs in different ranges, or from quite a few registered users who seem to have set up their accounts only for the purpose of spamming.

A difficult case is a website that appears to contain malware, because it is difficult for the administrator to be sure the accusation is true without getting his/her computer infected. Looking at what other reliable sources have to say about the site in question could be useful. While such a site should probably be listed on the meta blacklist, if it is a real hazard, if no meta administrator can be found to act promptly, it might be justifiable to list it on the Wikipedia blacklist as an interim measure.

Since both blacklists use regular expressions, they can block multiple websites. In some cases, it may be impossible to link to an appropriate website because it satisfies the same regular expression as a large number of inappropriate websites. An exception for the appropriate website can be created by putting them on a whitelist. If asked to whitelist a site, I would consider (a) does the site satisfy the criteria given at the external links guideline and (b) does the overall pattern of spamming suggest the spammers were not acting with the consent of the entity that controls the appropriate website?

If asked to de-blacklist an entire domain, I would look at the edit histories to see if the original blacklisting was justified, and ask the administrator who gave the original listing what his/her reasoning was. If the original admin is reachable, I would generally leave it to the original admin to resolve. If he/she was not reachable, I would consider how well justified the original block was, evidence that the spammer was not acting with the consent of the site owner, or evidence that the ownership of the site has changed since the site was blacklisted.

As stated above, Wikipedia:External links is the primary guideline. Of the guidelines referenced in External links, the most relevant are WP:Spam and WP:Conflict of interest. Blacklisting would be applied in cases of persistent and widespread promotion of a company, service, or point of view with blatant disregard for, and probably a total lack of interest in, Wikipedia editorial policies.

Thank you for the answer. You indeed found the guidelines that are generally governing the situations which lead to the use of the spam blacklist, however, IMHO, not the core of the situation.

As an example, you name in your nomination that you have worked on copyright issues. Would you consider copyright issues to be significant for the spam blacklist? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Most spam takes the form of links to a promotional site. Linking to a site is not usually a copyright, but knowingly linking to a site that violates copyright could be contributory copyright infringement and is disallowed by the External links guideline. Most of the spam I have seen links to commercial sites which most likely are the original works of the site owner, so copyright would not be an issue in those cases.

If a site contains many blatant copyright violations and is persistently used as a reference by a multitude of users (who might not know any better) then placing the site on the blacklist is probably appropriate, even though it does not meet the classic definition of spam. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Additional optional question from Pichpich

5. Since you haven't linked to it, I suppose that you don't want to reveal your real-name account. I respect that need for privacy but it does pose a bit of a problem when evaluating your candidacy. Would you be willing to reveal the name to a couple of trusted RfA regulars who could provide a summary of your activity with the old account?

A: Yes.

I've asked for and found a number of volunteers here. I'll let you figure out the right setup. Pichpich (talk) 18:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Questions from —fetch·comms

6. You say you would deal with disputes as part of the administrative work you intend to participate in. When is it appropriate to use the tools in a dispute (and what sort(s) of dispute: content, user, policy, etc.)?

A:Blocks are useful for editors contributing from a single IP address or userid who continue to vandalize, attack others, spam, violate copyright, or otherwise contravene policy after appropriate warnings and offers of help have been given.

If that sort of behavior is coming from multiple IPs and is clearly sockpuppetry, a range block or page protection against non-autoconfirmed users may be used; the length and type of action should be tailored to disenfranchise as few innocent IP editors as possible.

Content disputes should be allowed to work themselves out whenever possible. A comment from an uninvolved administrator to appropriate talk pages may cool things down. If an edit war breaks out, the page can be protected, but the level of protection (autoconfirmed or not) should not favor one side in the dispute. Talk pages should hardly ever be protected in content disputes.

As for policy disputes, I think they can seldom be disentangled from content disputes, so should usually be handled the same way. It is desirable that policies be stable so that what conforms to policy one minute does not become a violation the next. For pages that are neither policy nor articles, they have less effect on readers (who are our true constituency) so more leniency can be allowed. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

7. Please give two or three examples of when you have dealt with copyright issues onwiki. I understand that you may have experience with it from real life, but we're solely judging you by your onwiki contributions. Examples can be from Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations, Wikipedia:Copyright problems, other discussions, etc. If you have not participated a lot in copyright investigations and/or discussions onwiki, why not?

A: In this edit I answered a copyright question at the help desk. I hope the lack of followup questions means the questioner was satisfied.

I answered another help desk question here.

As discussed here, among other places, The Wikipedian Red Cross Barnstar used an image that combined the Geneva Cross with a barnstar. I originally thought this was a trademark violation, but after discussion with other editors and research, found that Congress passed a special law to protect the Geneva Cross, so this violation does not fall into any of the commonplace intellectual property categories. At my suggestion, the barnstar and image were deleted. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Additional optional question from Salvio giuliano

8. When is it appropriate, in your opinion, to impose an editing restriction on a user and how would you go about it, should you want to impose one?

A: I know that the Arbitration Committee sometimes imposes editing restrictions on a user. I understand that the user is on his or her honor to obey the restriction; it is not enforced by software. I was not aware that individual administrators imposed editing restrictions, but I suppose it could be imposed as a condition of something the administrator was no obliged to do, such as reinstating a blocked user. By the way, I am deliberately giving an off-the-cuff answer. If this situation came up, I would research it and/or ask another administrator, since this is obviously a weak area for me. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Additional optional question from Doc Quintana

9. What's your interpretation of IAR?

A: It is not possible for a set of rules to contemplate every possibility, especially when the rules are written by a consensus of editors, most of whom have no training in rule writing. Many sets of rules have an escape clause for cases where it would be counter-productive to apply the letter of the rules. Such an escape clause is described at Necessity defense (New York). Ignore all rules is Wikipedia's escape clause. Of course, it is merely a policy, and cannot override applicable law, such as copyright law.

There are interactions between IAR and other policies; editors will feel free to write other policies more concisely and deliberately leave out obscure exceptions, knowing that IAR is always there to fall back on. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Additional optional question from VernoWhitney

10. As a follow-up to Q7: You gave examples of answering questions at the help desk regarding copyvios, and any help with copyvios is always appreciated, but if you intend to concentrate on copyright matters why haven't you been involved in any of the the noticeboards or processes related to Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup (WP:CP, WP:CCI, WP:PUF, WP:MCQ, etc.)? If you have and I've overlooked it, could you please point out your contributions?

A: I have read some of the noticeboards, and my reaction was that in most instances all there was to do was wait for the person who performed the edit with the alleged copyvio to provide an explanation; usually no explanation was forthcoming. The next step would be to delete the article (unless it could be fixed) which requires an administrator. I was left with the impression that the boards I looked at didn't have a very good signal to noise ratio for a non-administrator.

Today I have looked again, and saw the reports for CorenSearchBot. Either that bot wasn't running the last time I looked, or I missed it. I looked at some of the reports, and noticed that at least one of them looked like a false positive. I suspect looking at the reports of this bot to see if they are false positives is a useful activity for non-admins.

I have a general recollection of having a somewhat higher level activity in the copyright area than your question would suggest, but I have not been keeping a log so am not prepared to give a detailed list. I would say I come across a copyright situation that I think about around once or twice a week, but I often feel no action on my part is called for. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Additional optional question from Avicennasis

11. Let's say somehow or another you come across an article with a new image on it, say, a painting or television screen shot. Although it does help the article in regards to some critical commentary made about the image, you can clearly tell it's copyrighted. The new contributor who uploaded this file has tagged it as public domain, however. How would you address this issue?

A:

As explained at WP:NFCITV screen shots or images of paintings can be used if they are criticized or discussed in the article. Two things to consider are (1) is the criticism or discussion bona fide or just a ploy to use the images, and (2) are there free images that could be substituted to serve the same purpose. It is unlikely a free substitute could be found for the painting, but there might be a better chance for the TV screen shot.

If no substitute can be found I would explain to the original editor how to pick an appropriate non-free tag for the image; a selection is available at WP:File copyright tags/Non-free. The description of the image must also include a fair-use rationale for the particular article it is used in. Of course, the image should be at Wikipedia rather than commons; commons is only for free images. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Additional optional question from Gimmetoo

12. You find a non-admin account with a username similar to an admin account, with a note on its user page saying it is an alternate of the admin account. After some searching, you don't find any edits from the admin account to the non-admin account that would confirm the non-admin account as an alternate. The admin account has not edited in months. Do you block the non-admin account as a potential imposter until it is confirmed by the admin account? Explain why or why not with reference to any policies you think relevant. If not, state what you would do.

A: The relevant policy is Wikipedia:Username policy#Similar usernames and Wikipedia:Username policy#Using multiple accounts. First, I would look at some edits by the non-admin account to see if they are appropriate, and if the account holder tries to throw his/her weight around by referring to the admin account, or allowing people to be confused by the similar name. If I don't see any behavior like that, I would put messages to both talk pages pointing out that some people might wonder if both accounts are held by the same person.

If the person ignored my talk page inquiries but continued editing, I would look at who the user was interacting with and seems to respect, and request a third opinion from that person. I would be reluctant to issue a block because while there is a perception of a possible problem, there is no actual bad behavior.

Another avenue to explore is to find the RfA and see if both accounts are mentioned. I would see which was created first, and look for any interaction with an admin to get around the automatic prevention of similar user names (I infer from the Username policy that such a mechanism exists, although I have never triggered it myself).

If none of these avenues was successful, I would follow the avenue at WP:BADNAME, "consider leaving well enough alone and assume good faith when dealing with usernames that do not unambiguously step out of bounds." After all, I am a volunteer who is not obliged to take action, so if I personally am not convinced a problem exists, I can always leave it to others to act.

I have actually dealt with a Username policy recently, and followed the general theme of my answer. I posted to User talk:Ncees corpcomm but since the editor had become inactive and didn't make any inappropriate edits, I did not pursue further action. (I should reveal, in the interest of full disclosure and not as a claim of expertise, that I have taken two examinations administered by the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying.) Jc3s5h (talk) 16:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

General comments

• Links for Jc3s5h: Jc3s5h (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Jc3s5h can be found here.

---

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

Discussion

• Can you please opt-in to X!'s edit counter so we can see a more detailed summary of your edits? Access Denied ^talk _contribs editor review 15:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• I was about to ask the same thing. I'm liking what I see so far, but the relatively low number of edits gives me pause, I'd like to see where those edits are without having to spend hours going through contribution logs. -- Atama頭 17:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• To explain, they are asking you to create the page User:Jc3s5h/EditCounterOptIn.js with the content " // opt-in " –xeno^talk 17:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• Full stats posted. —fetch·comms 18:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• There are other tools that do almost exactly the same thing and which have not been disabled. --Kudpung (talk) 04:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Previous account

Jc3s5h has emailed me the name of the previous account. I have done an initial review and am now formulating the words to post here. The very short answer is that all indications are completely fine. More soon.  Frank  |  talk  17:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Since I asked the question on Jc3s5h's talk page, I have been presented with Jc3s5h's previous user name by email. I feel this now obligates me to take an extra hard look, which I will do. Keeping in mind that the reason for not revealing the previous account regards privacy, I am doing my best to be informative will still respecting that privacy. With that in mind, my initial look reveals the following:

• The previous account is, indeed, a real name.
• It had more edits than this account.
• The namespace distribution graph for it is similar to this account.
• A Google search of the previous account's name with safe search off does not reveal anything untoward about the user in the first 10 pages (100 hits). I didn't click through. This is maybe of less relevance because it regards off-wiki experience, but the point is that there's no "smoking gun".
• Block log is non-existent.
• Overlap period between use of the two accounts is essentially zero.
• I had never heard of either this user or the previous username before seeing this RfA, and I do not know the user personally. A wikistalk check shows a low correlation between either account and my own account.

I will review actual contributions as well, but this is an initial review, and it shows nothing whatsoever of alarm. If there are specific questions that others would like me to address, please let me know either here or on my talk page and I'll do my best to answer.  Frank  |  talk  17:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• I can confirm Frank's initial report above. The candidate's previous account did not have anything in their userrights or block log. The candidate has one ANI thread bearing their name some years ago. It drew scant attention save for one editor and two administrators who each commented exactly once, and neglected to take any action (indeed suggesting that it was a content dispute unsuitable for ANI or that no administrative action was required). By-and-large, it seemed to be a bit of a "spirited disagreement" between the reporter and the candidate, and the ANI thread fizzled without result. I didn't find any other noticeboard threads concerning the candidate's former account. Other than that, I couldn't find anything in the history of the previous account ^{when searching in the Wikipedia/WT:-namespace} that would present cause for concern. –xeno^talk 18:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC) ^{Slight add to make it clear I haven't done an exhaustive examination of the contribution history. User:Balloonman would be best suited for that. –xenotalk 00:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)}
  • Is the link between the two accounts firmly established? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

  I am convinced, although I do not have the checkuser right (and this would probably not be an appropriate use of it anyway).  Frank  |  talk  21:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

  I would say so. –xeno^talk 22:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

  What if it was volutary? --WFC-- 23:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

  Checkusers don't typically run 'voluntary' checks (I believe because it may inadvertantly turn up data on other contributors, whose privacy would've thus been violated unnecessarily, or somesuch). I can have them email me from the old account though, certifying the request. –xeno^talk 00:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

  Yes, that's a good suggestion; I will report if I receive such an email as well. To reiterate, though, I'm convinced even without it.  Frank  |  talk  00:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

  Now certified. –xeno^talk 00:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

More info
As I indicated yesterday, I spent some extra time looking through the old account's edits. I also spent some time looking for things I don't always look for, so I could report on things I think others might be interested in. Here is a longer list, as an extension to the list above; I found nothing to change from that list:

• The conversation xeno mentioned above (we emailed briefly about it): the short answer is that I concur with xeno's summary. I would add that it is in no way unusual around here to be accused of something anything nothing at AN/I. The particular thread in question was pretty much a yawner...a little bit of back and forth between two users but lack of consensus that anything needed to be done by anyone.
• AIV activity: contributions in each of the years 2006 through 2009, spaced over months (not just one or two per year). Not what you'd call heavy activity, but good entries. The vast majority resulted in blocks with no discussion. I found one that was labeled a content dispute, and one or two declined for lack of sufficient warning; these were all judgment calls and don't reflect badly on the candidate at all.
• AfD activity: entries in each year 2006 - 2008. Some nominations as well, I found none frivolous or pointy. Opinions expressed were policy-based. Candidate did change opinion in the face of new information presented in the discussion and/or edits to the article in question, more than once. I checked about half a dozen AfDs. No concerns here.
• Article creation: Very few to review, but the as-created versions looked fine. References were provided in all but one; in that remaining case, it was more or less meant to be a stub pointing to other, larger articles. The created article topics are non-frivolous and technical in nature. In one case, public-domain material is included and is properly attributed.
• Deleted edits: Largely confined to test edits in user's own space. I couldn't find any indication of CSD participation.
• Policy discussions: Candidate displayed interest in a relatively narrow set of stylistic discussions. Discussions are polite, on-topic, concise, and collegial.
• Copyright: Looking for edits with the word "copyright" in either the page title or edit summary did reveal a number of contributions, although not large. The ones I clicked into were spot-on in describing either policy or law on the subject.
• Edit summaries: No evidence of "drive-by" edits containing terse, swear-word-laden summaries to indicate a bad temperament, and no mention of the word "civility" in edit summaries either. Obviously it's hard to find all evidence of one losing one's top, but I didn't see it in the 2,000+ edit summaries I searched.

In conclusion, I can find nothing bad and plenty to recommend this candidate's old account. I think Jc3s5h, having been here with this new account for almost 18 months, has been here quite long enough to rely solely on the current account. The exception to that, of course, is that some would wonder how Jc3s5h became so familiar with Wikipedia so early. This is the reason, I presume, for pre-identifying the previous account. I am fully convinced that privacy regarding user name is the reason for the switch. I can find nothing to hide from based on that account's contributions, and plenty to support this candidacy.

Given the situation where I am trying to be the "eyes and ears" for others, I really made an effort to look for reasons why others might oppose, even if they weren't things I'd oppose over. Not only couldn't I find them, I found a well-rounded level-headed candidate.  Frank  |  talk  20:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. Support looks fine to me. Good luck, - filelakeshoe 16:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

   Support. Good answers to questions, sounds like there's no problem with earlier user account, and seems to understand stuff pretty well. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC) (New concerns mean I have to move to Oppose, sorry)

2. Consistent editor which i like, particularly like involvement in the help desk. Ottawa4ever (talk) 18:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
3. Strong Support - I feel very good about this candidate. Edits show a strong distribution all over the encyclopedia, in article space, project space, etc. This editor's communication skills are fine, I see no evidence of past disruption, they show technical aptitude (just peek at the user page) and copyright knowledge is a HUGE plus. I only hope the old account doesn't cast a pall over this RfA; even though it has been vetted, people get paranoid about that kind of thing due to some past bad experiences here. -- Atama頭 18:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
4. Support Good answers, knows his way around, old account seems to be no issue. —fetch·comms 18:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
5. Support – Great contributions and excellent answers to the questions. Old account seems to be of no issue. Looks good to me. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 18:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
6. Support Looks good to me, though I'd like to see more edits per month in the future. Access Denied ^talk _contribs editor review 18:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
7. Support Why not? It looks fine to me. Pilif12p :  Yo  18:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
8. Weak Support Relatively consistent level of contributions since joining Wikipedia in March 2009; quality content contributions (but only two article creations); cerebral answers; appears trustworthy (reviewer, rollbacker) and mop-ready--Hokeman (talk) 18:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
9. Support Lacking in article creation, but everything else looks good to me. Tyrol5 [Talk] 19:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
10. Support for a longterm user with a clean block log. Also per Frank and Xeno. ϢereSpielChequers 19:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
11. Support No red flags. Experienced editor and good answers to the questions above. Pichpich (talk) 19:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
12. Support - editor looks trustworthy and steady in edit contributions over time. Should be a useful addition to the admin corps. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
13. Support Much thanks to both Frank and Xeno for there work. Codf1977 (talk) 21:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
14. Support - looks good. Airplaneman ✈ 22:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
15. Support - Excellent choice for the mop. ~NSD (✉ • ✐) 22:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
16. Support - I've looked around, and you seem to be a good choice for an administrator. Use the tools wisely :) Ajraddatz Talk Contributions 22:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

    Very Weak Support I would like to see more activity and experience, but I think the user has enough experience to display that they would do fine with the tools. Doc Quintana (talk) 23:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC) removing, may move to another section later. Doc Quintana (talk) 07:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

17. Support nothing wrong here. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 23:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
18. Support - Mlpearc Public (talk) 01:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
19. Support - ^ ResMar 02:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
20. Support Why not? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
21. Support Has the specialty experience in the area he wishes to work in. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

    Support. Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC) Move to Oppose -FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

22. Support Full confidence in Xeno and Frank regarding certification of the old account. No obvious reason to oppose + experience in the areas where you wish to specifically help out = net positive. Pedro :  Chat  07:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

    No concerns at all, and I quite like the honest unresearched answers to the questions. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC) Moving to oppose. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

    Support, because of the fact that the candidate has a "specialty" that's not terribly common with RFA candidates. Swarm^Talk 10:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

23. Support, seems sufficiently clueful. Jonathunder (talk) 19:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
24. Support per nom. bd2412 T 00:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
25. Support, you look like someone who will use the tools responsibly. The whole changing-username issue says to me that you're well aware of the potential danger of using your real name, and thus likely to be even more careful than most of us are. Nyttend (talk) 04:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
26. Support, good track record in content work. Kbrose (talk) 08:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
27. Support Appears responsible from everything I've looked at in history/contribs, and will be useful in copyright matters - net positive. Orderinchaos 17:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
28. Solely on the fact that I trust this user. I think they'll be accountable and mature in their decisions. ceranthor 20:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
29. Support, especially like the second paragraph of the answer to Q3 (had the same issue over free content, we're not a free content project right now), and answer to Q6. The candidate seems thoughtful and prepared to check into things before acting, and the willingness to allow trusted editors to examine the previous account relieves any concern that there's something to hide there (and from those reviews, it certainly seems that there is not a thing bad there). Overall, seems a net positive. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
30. Support meets most of my criteria. I see no reason to oppose. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 22:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
31. Weak Support: Not quite there yet. - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
32. Support: I've been teetering on a 'neutral' here because I'm not sure the candidate needs the tools for he work he does, and I find the self-nom rationale a bit thin - though this seems to have been compensated for in the answers to subsequent optional questions. Whether the candidate uses the tools or not, I trust him with them, and I trust his sense of jedgement in instances where he does not need to use them, but will need to demonstrate the maturity we generally hope to expect from admins. Therefore I see no reason not to offer my support.--Kudpung (talk) 04:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
33. Support - can't see much to object to here, especially after reading Frank and Xeno's reports. Euryalus (talk) 12:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
34. Support We need more admins working in copyright, that and I see no major issues causing me to doubt whether I can trust him or her with the mop. 2 says you, says two 13:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
35. Support - I can't really find any reason to oppose. More experience would be better, but I think the candidate will learn fast. The answers to questions and analyses of the previous account are satisfactory. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 13:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
36. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 15:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
37. Support - I worked with Jc3s5h for several years including under his previous named account. His contributions have been reasonable even under challenging conditions. --SWTPC6800 (talk) 04:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
38. Support - No problems that I can see. We have an ever-growing need for administrators. I hope you will make us all proud to have voted for you. Kindzmarauli (talk) 05:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose per your answer to my question (I don't want to be mean, but, in my opinion, you whiffed it) and because, more in general, I fail to see much experience in admin-related areas. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 18:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
2. Oppose - I honestly don't know what you do with regards administrative areas. You've said that you're working with copyright, but I don't see any copyright related areas in your top wikipedia edits. If this is my genuine mistake, then could someone kindly point me in the right direction, so that if I'm wrong, I can then re-evaluate. Thanks. Paralympiakos (talk) 20:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

   I'm not objecting to your oppose (nothing wrong in it) but I do think one statement is odd; "I don't see any copyright related areas in your top wikipedia edits". The copyright policy applies to every aspect of Wikipedia, so anyone who contributes does so in a "copyright related area". Jc3s5h mentioned a few examples, and asking for more or better examples is fair, but a person doesn't need to show activity at WP:CV (for example) to demonstrate experience. -- Atama頭 21:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

   Ok, that's fair enough. My (incorrect) understanding was that CV was the part that Jc was going to be working in. My bad. Paralympiakos (talk) 22:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

   Just now I've noticed question number 10. This was the road I was somewhat heading down, so that's pretty much what I meant in the first place. Paralympiakos (talk) 22:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

   Yeah I saw that too, maybe that will give everyone a better chance to judge. It's still early in this RfA. :) -- Atama頭 00:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

   Well now I'm baffled as to how so many people can support this candidate. By their own admission in q10, they're only coming across their main subject of work once or twice a week and sometimes, it's not actionable. Given the lack of other administrative work (AIV, RPP etc), this means that the user doesn't need the tools at all. Paralympiakos (talk) 08:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

   You might find WP:NONEED is worth a read. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

   I'm not saying that candidates absolutely have to have experience in AIV and RPP. What I'm saying is that there are no clear-cut "Wikipedia:X" contributions in the top set and that just tells me that project space edits aren't what is required for adminship. I don't think NONEED is particularly relevant for wikipedia. If an individual does not work in Wikipedia: pages, they don't need it, nor do they have the experience to hold these tools. As NONEED says, "any admin candidate must be experienced with that process" and I see no process related to copyright work. Paralympiakos (talk) 09:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

3. Oppose - I would support in the future, but there's just not enough admin-like work here that I can support. There are 2 page creations, and little to no work in RfA, AfD, vandalism patrolling, or other admin like areas. Also, less than 40% of the edit history is to the article space. Maybe it's because we can't see the previous account, but I'm not convinced of a strong need for the tools at this time. If there was a little more of a track record in some traditional admin areas, I would support the next time around. Shadowjams (talk) 21:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

   "Less the 40% of edit history is to the article space." Man, I'm having flashbacks. ResMar 02:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

4. Oppose - Possibly support in future, but fairly sparse involvement in any administrative areas to date. Claims of off-wiki knowledge and experience hold little water. Also a little concerned by apparent lack of willingness to research before answering a number of the questions above. _wjemather^bigissue 10:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
5. Oppose Reluctantly, since the massive backlog in the copyright area could always use more admins. From your answers and your contributions though, I just don't see that you have any real familiarity with how copyright is handled on-wiki, regardless of your real world experience. "How to comment at copyright problems?" is a good question to ask, but you should already know that if you really want to work with copyright here. VernoWhitney (talk) 11:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
6. Oppose I've enthusiastically supported specialist admin candidates in the past, but Verno's diff is part of a pattern of stuff that concerns me about this one. A large part of the candidate's edit history is hidden, the candidate's talk page archive is hidden - you have to go into the history to see "Archive 0" - and the stuff that is in the talk page is more surly than I'd hope for from someone I'd work with on a volunteer project. Townlake (talk) 14:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
7. Oppose Too much smoke and mirrors. This candidate should be able to say "I have done this in the last X months, I edited previously under another name and that account is okay" not "I am okay but I was previously excellent please trust this" Polargeo (talk) 14:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

   Not to dissuade you from your position, but I don't think the candidate is presenting their former account in such a manner. It seems to me that they've mentioned the past account as more of a "full disclosure" type of statement, rather than asking participants to take their previous (sight unseen) contributions into account. –xeno^talk 14:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

   Fair enough. I think I will leave my oppose in place as I also do not like the answers to questions 1,2 and 3. I don't think we need admins to be copyright lawyers. Yes admins have to enforce policy that may be based on copyright but to have someone specifically come in with this strong agenda is unsettling to me. Polargeo (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

8. Oppose Partly per VernoWhitney, partly through somewhat vague answers to questions, particularly on copyright, where he had expressed most interest. I also found the talk page less than helpful in terms of accessing historical archived posts, and when I did reach the archive I was concerned that often the collegiality I would be hoping to see seemed less than pervasive. Put all that together with a lack of relevant experience in the contributions I can review for this account, and I'm afraid I can't support. It's nice that others can confirm no skeletons in the closet for the contributions on the previous account, but that doesn't add to my ability to review them - so I can only consider what I can see.  Begoon^talk 16:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

   Regretful Oppose Per VernoWhitney, Begoon, Question 8 and Question 10. The answers to those questions were simply too vague to understand what you would do with the tools and both of these users whom I mentioned above make good points that cannot be ignored.--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 20:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC) (My opposition is simply too weak. I am moving to Neutral leaning Oppose.--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 20:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC))

9. Weak oppose (switched from support) I was feeling neutral before, so I "defaulted" to support. However, my support decision's been bugging me and I've had a number of growing concerns. The copyright specialty is still a plus, but there's just too much that I'm "not feeling" with this candidate. The unimpressive answers, vague history, and the general lack of anything that impresses or wows me has led me to the extremely regrettable decision to withdraw my support and oppose. I feel bad doing it, but I'm just not comfortable enough supporting. Sorry. Swarm^Talk 03:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

   Is "vague history"' a reference to the previous account? Xeno and Frank have actually spent considerable time making it much more concrete so I don't know what would satisfy you. Pichpich (talk) 03:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

   Vague or not, they're trying to protect their privacy, and I absolutely can't hold that against them. As long as it's certified by a trusted user, I would never use "vagueness" as an excuse to distrust someone, so I don't know why I listed that. It was a very lazy remark, I strongly retract it. Swarm^Talk 05:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

10. Oppose. Not enough work in copyright areas on Wikipedia IMO, sorry. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
11. Lack of evidence presented regarding user's onwiki experience with their area of focus (copyright). I am unconvinced. —Dark 08:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
12. Oppose. Moved from Support after checking Talk page more closely. It has nothing earlier than 12 July 2010, and the Archive box says there are no archives. But there is an archive page, at User_talk:Jc3s5h/Archive_0. I'm not saying that is the deliberately concealing of the candidate's past discussions, but the archive has been going since June 2009 and neglecting to change the "no archives yet" statement for so long is at least careless. But more importantly, a read of the Archive shows curt and abrupt communication, with suggestions of stubbornness rather than the openness and willingness to discuss things, as I would expect in an admin. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

    Indeed, most responses are rather curt and lack the courtesy that collaborative editing requires. There are very few pleases and thankyous to be found. I find this comment brusque and unnecessary. I think administrators need to be more responsive than this. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

13. Sorry, because of a lack of experience in the procedures with which wikipedia deals with copyright problems (which is more important than legal knowledge of copyright).--Mkativerata (talk) 19:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
14. Oppose. Concerns with experience and policy knowledge in the field s/he wishes to work. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
15. Oppose partly per VernoWhitney and Mkativerata. Jc3s5h‎ wishes to work with copyright and copyright violations, but has very little on-wiki experience in that area. (See, for example, User_talk:Theleftorium#How_to_comment_at_copyright_problems.3F.) In addition, at WP:SCV, Jc3s5h confirmed a copyright violation in the Rideau Canal Festival article yesterday, but I've had a look and there doesn't seem to be any copyright issues at all (see Talk:Rideau Canal Festival and User_talk:Jc3s5h#Rideau_Canal_Festival for more information). I'd be willing to support a future RfA if you get some more experience in dealing with copyright violations (if you're still interested in working in that area). Also, you've only made two or three speedy deletion nominations, so I'd like to see some more work with WP:CSD before you get access to the delete button. Theleftorium ^(talk) 21:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
16. Oppose - per above. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 22:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
17. Oppose I'm not satisfied with policy understanding given from this discussion. Doc Quintana (talk) 01:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
18. Oppose. Insufficient experience. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
19. Per User:Boing! said Zebedee I have concerns about this editors politeness and responsiveness. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
20. Oppose Insufficient experience, extremely poor content devleoper. Two articles is extremely poor. I also get highly suspicious when somebody with lack of experience nominates themselves for adminship. Dr. Blofeld 09:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
21. Strong Oppose: People who have not contributed sufficiently, can't properly administrate contributors. --Sulmues ^(talk) 14:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
22. Oppose. I have concerns with the candidate's knowledge of policy, particularly in their intended field of work; experience, especially with content creation and copyright issues; and civility, as the candidate often comes across, at least to me, as brusque, curt, and unresponsive. Laurinavicius (talk) 15:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
23. Oppose - This was a hard !vote because I see good arguments on both sides. In the end, it came down to experience concerns, with a mild concern also regarding civility. May I encourage you to try again in 5-6 months? I thank you for your service to date, and hope you can be handed a mop not too far down the road. Best wishes, Jusdafax 16:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
24. Oppose per VernoWhitney and Boing said Zebedee. Really not convinced by very vague answers to questions above and lack of involvement in project areas.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
25. Oppose per Sulmues and that there is not much documented work currently in the relevant copyright areas. There needs to be more in the content area and in the copyright area for me to comfortably support. –MuZemike 15:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
26. Oppose for now. A few more months and a bit more experience and I reckon you could make a fine admin. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
27. Oppose Lack of experience. Bejinhan talks 11:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

    Strong oppose. Do not give this man any new powers. There will be chaos if you do. As people grow older their brain function deteriorates. This has been commented on here. Congratulations to all those who observed this with no prior knowledge of the candidate. WFC says "One would think that in a four line nomination statement, the candidate would go to the trouble of getting that right." The reality is that he can't. Even his correction is wrong. He writes "Jc3s5h (talk) 14:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC) corrected 16:31, August 2010".There should be a date in there somewhere. 94.195.195.252 (talk) 14:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

    Sorry, but IP's cannot vote in an RfA. In addition, does it have to be so ridiculously long? The Thing // Talk // Contribs 14:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

    Extremely lengthy dissertation moved to the talk page. –xeno^talk 20:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

28. Oppose - per above, basically. I don't think you've gained enough experience in the areas you wish to work in (e.g. copyright) for me to have confidence in you as an admin. I hope to be able to support next time. Robofish (talk) 01:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
29. Oppose very weak candidate. There is nothing to indicate to me why this candidate must be an admin, and there are, IMHO, far too many bad ones to take the risk in approving this candidature. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
30. Oppose I’ve found Jc3s5h to be prone to ideological certitude that defies common sense and reason. This is the last thing we want in an admin. Greg L (talk) 05:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral Looks good to me, although with only two articles created, I'm not sure if he understands enough policies in order to qualify for an admin. Minimac (talk) 15:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

   Neutral for now. User lacks a bit in article creation, but will look at other contribs and make my decision. Tyrol5 [Talk] 16:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC) Moved to support Tyrol5 [Talk] 19:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

   Neutral leaning to support. Looks fine to me, but will wait until he opts into the edit counter. I won't oppose due to "low edit count" as some people may/i used to... Pilif12p :  Yo  17:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC) Moved to support Pilif12p :  Yo  18:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

2. A very very odd RFA this one. It's as if you've got a new identity and are heading into a job interview - I can't do anything without a résumé, as it were. I'll wait until the trusted folk you've given your name to give their reviews. (I don't blame you personally for any of this, it just makes it impossible to judge.)  f o x  18:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
3. Gut feeling to oppose My conclusion is that either you changed accounts due to fear over privacy, or that you wanted a clean break from the account. If its the former, I question the judgement of a person who would submit him or herself for adminship 5 months later. Despite our policy on outing, surely you are aware that you run the considerable risk of being identified? If it's the latter, I feel that you should be judged solely on this account's contributions, in which case I would be willing to evaluate your contributions, but will almost certainly oppose on a lack of experience in requisite areas. --WFC-- 22:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

   He clearly stated changing accounts was for privacy reasons. Airplaneman ✈ 22:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

   And I clearly stated that if this is the reason, starting an RfA five months after privacy fears suggests a lack of judgement. --WFC-- 22:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

   To clarify: It's actually one year and five months. The candidate's contributions start in March 2009.  Frank  |  talk  02:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

   Thanks for clarifying. One would think that in a four line nomination statement, the candidate would go to the trouble of getting that right. I'm staying neutral. I can't oppose on a hunch, and any oppose after looking through the contribution history would be tainted by being motivated on a hunch. --WFC-- 13:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

4. Neutral (but that is since I mainly feel that non-admins should show their trust in the support/oppose) - However, you're right in saying that the addition of links to copyright violations don't follow the classical pattern of spam. But unfortunately, a lot of spam on Wikipedia does not follow that pattern (and copyright concerns are one of the issues that is encountered with links to e.g. YouTube, but also with blogspot I have seen such issues!). Quite some links on the blacklist are there because of multiple concerns, where quite some is classical spam on 'financial' (not only commercial!) grounds, but that is often not the only reason. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

   Off-topic, but could you clarify why do you feel that non-admins should have a greater say at an RfA? (If that is what you mean by "I mainly feel that non-admins should show their trust in the support/oppose".) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

   It is more, that I would only vote oppose or neutral if I have serious concerns. Maybe it is personal, but I feel (slightly) conflicted when I am, as an editor who, next to that editing, tries to enforce policy and guideline, have to judge if someone else will not enforce policy and guideline in a 'wrong' way.

   Another point is, that if I would enforce my 'criteria' (a good knowledge of policy and guideline as evidenced by editing (mainspace), by discussion on those policies and guidelines (talkpages of them), and by discussion on application of policies and guidelines (AFD, CSD, UAA, RFPP, &c. &c.) hardly anyone (maybe including myself) would not pass .... --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

5. Neutral Nothing wrong that I can see with the candidate, but the pretenses make me somewhat uneasy. Once the designated reviewers come forth I'll consider moving to support. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 06:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

   I've posted my review above. I do not know if anyone else is reviewing further.  Frank  |  talk  13:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

   I'll think about it. (Although I'm now certified blind) NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 15:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

6. Neutral: General feeling is not going anywhere after reading everything. I go into these looking for reasons to support/oppose, and here they are weak or are equaling out. -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 19:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
7. Neutral per DeltaQuad. ••Pepper•• 18:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
8. Neutral leaning oppose per my earlier opposition. I do however feel that my rational was not strong enough to Warrant an all out oppose, hence my presence here.--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 20:29, 18 August 2010 (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.