Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jeffrey Mall

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.

Jeffrey Mall[edit]

Final (31/18/11); closed at 09:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC) by —Anonymous DissidentTalk

Nomination[edit]

Jeffrey Mall (talk · contribs) – Good day fellow editors, my name is Jeffrey Mall and I would like to nominate myself for adminship. I have been fairly active now for a little over 5 months and in this time, I have made over 3,700 contributions to Wikipedia and gathered over 8,000 edits in anti vandalism efforts.

I generally spend my time, and enjoy performing behind the scenes maintenance tasks on Wikipedia such as Wikifying/de-orphaning of articles, participating in deletion discussions and work around potential candidates for speedy deletion. I am here to request the extra tools to aid me in the tasks I have listed below. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 03:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I have around 300 reports to AIV so far, and extensive experience in dealing with disruptive users so I will most likely start here. I’d like to spend some time over at RFR granting sensible requests for the rollback function. I would like to participate in candidates for speedy deletion in the near future. I would like to help clear the CAT:TWU backlog, deleting unneeded user pages owned by users blocked indefinitely. That’s about all the areas I would like to work in, of course, that doesn’t mean that in the future I won’t go ahead be bold and delete the occasional attack page that I happen to stumble across and temporarily protect any pages that may be being battered by vandalism.
In a nutshell:
I would like to point out however that I do not and will not ever do any work that involves deletion of images. I have no experience in that area and no interest whatsoever.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I believe that my work with Wikiprojects WP:DO and WP:WIKI are my best contributions to Wikipedia. I’m not a writer, it’s not one of my passions, but I like fixing up articles like these so that they look like this. I’m proud of my work with Wikiprojects Orph and Wiki and I will definitely carry on Wikifying and de-orphaning articles in the future, regardless of my user rights log.
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: Having done a lot of work around anti vandalism I’ve had a lot of not very nice things said to me intended to cause me stress but most of the things people say to me to attempt to cause me distress have actually made me laugh.
I don’t believe I’ve ever been in any real conflicts over editing. The disputes I have been involved in however have been archived under "Resolved disputes" on my talk page if you’d like to go have a look over there.
Additional optional questions from Coffee
4. If you were to close an AFD, on a BLP, where there is no easily determined consensus how would you close it?
A. If there was no easily determined consensus, I would most likely relist instead of closing. I probably won't be closing any AfD's in the future though, unless the article was already deleted by another Administrator who had determined consensus and forgot to close the discussion (I've seen this a few times in the past), though I do intend on continuing to participate in the discussions.
5. What is your opinion on the current BLP policy, and what work have you done (if any) with BLPs?
A. I don't have any opinions on the current BLP policy per say, as mentioned above, I'm not huge on writing, any work I would've done on any BLP's would have been uncontreversial maintenance tasks.
Expansion to answer per request
When I said "I don't have any opinions on the current BLP policy" I literally meant that I don't have an opinion on the policy, not that I didn't understand it, I'm fully aware of the importance of Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy. BLP articles are very sensitive things (we're broadcasting information about a living person to the world here) and care needs to be taken when editing such articles. WP:GRAPEVINE is something I strongly agree with, we can't have people adding negative original research to articles as sensitive as these, untruthful negative content can have detrimental effects on the subject of the article and this is just one reason why WP:BLP is and should be such a strictly upheld Wikipedia policy.
Additional optional question from Epeefleche
6. What is your opinion of the Admin Recall proposals here?
A. There seems to be a lot of mixed opinions on recall proposals. I generally support the idea of Administrator recall, though in theory, we shouldn't even need it. I would be more than willing to volunteer myself as an Administrator open to recall if the community willing to grant me access to the tools, however, should I require it, I would probably resign the mop myself.

Questions from ArcAngel

7. When should cool down blocks be used and why?
A. I do not agree with them, and Wikipedia's policy on blocking dictates that they should not be used.
8. Could you please provide examples of inadequate reports to WP:AIV (that you would decline and remove from that page without blocking the user reported)?
A. A user with only two {{subst:uw-v2}} warnings for vandalism at the time of report (insufficiently warned). An IP that has vandalized once after a {{subst:uw-v4}} warning issued a week ago. An edit war between editors in which one user reports the other.
9. What contributions are you least proud of, and in what way may they (in your opinion) have affected your judgement?
A. I don't think I have any contributions that I am "unproud" of per say. As mentioned below, there has been the odd occasion in which I have forgotten to notify a user that I have tagged their recently created article for speedy deletion for whatever reason it may have been. As I am unable to view my deleted contributions I was unaware that I had made such mistakes, this will be rectified however, the next time I scan through newpages.
10. Do you feel that pages can be moved without a discussion first to form consensus, and do you feel that WP:BOLD overrides that?
A. Yes, and I have done so on a few occassions. A basic example would be proper capitalization of the title per Naming conventions.
Additional optional question from Coldplay Expert
11. Have you ever promoted an article to FA pr GA status?
A. Simple answer: No. I prefer to work on articles with a lot less traffic in need of (and in some cases in desperate) need of cleanup/wikification/link repair/citations cleanups, start or stub class for example as opposed to B class articles that could be made into a good article.
Questions from Smithers (Talk)
12. What is Speedy Deletion criterion G1?
A. Speedy deletion on the basis that the article in question has no meaningful content and contains only gibberish, random words or overall incoherent text.
13. What is the difference between a block and a ban?
A. A block is a technical restriction which prevents users or IP's from editing for any set period of time. A ban is a formal revocation of your rights to edit Wikipedia either in a certain area or Wikipedia as a whole.
Additional optional questions from Btilm
14. What is your opinion about notability as it relates to the inclusion/exclusion of content on Wikipedia? That is, what do you think an ideal Wikipedia would look like in terms of content? Do you feel that anything the meets the general notability guidelines should be allowed (excluding what Wikipedia is not type articles), or do you feel that some things aren't notable even if they have been covered in depth by multiple reliable sources? Are there any types of articles that you feel are automatically notable; that is, worthy of inclusion just by being verifiable without direct proof of in depth coverage in multiple reliable sources? (To be clear, I am looking for your personal opinion, and hopefully an insight to the way you think, not a restatement of current policy.)
A: An ideal Wikipedia from my point of view would be one rich with reliable and verifiable information on all topics covered by the encyclopedia. Being one of the top 10 most visited websites and probably the most popular encyclopedia on the Internet, it’s very important that all information contained within its articles are reliable and can be verified by reliable third party sources, don’t get me wrong, personally I trust Wikipedia as a reliable source for information, but there’s still a lot of information that needs to be sourced to prove that the information is truly reliable, CAT:UNREF at the moment is showing a total of 176,823 unreferenced articles, over 54,000 of which are BLP’s which as a result conflicts with Wikipedia’s policy on Biographies of living persons. In regards to your question on automatic notability, generally speaking, articles on royalty or royal families could be classed as "automatically notable", however, "automatic notability" as it were, is fairly rare.
Questions from Abecedare (talk)
15. You listed the edits you made to the Action! (novel) article as among your best contributions to wikipedia, in response to Q2. Can you review the current version of the article and discuss which wikipedia content policies and guidelines it does and doesn't comply with ? (Don't worry about WP:MOS issues)
Note: Your edits were certainly a improvement to the article, and I chose this as an example to gauge your understanding of wikipedia's content policies, only because you are already familiar with it.
A: I believe that this novel was one of Carolyn Keene's less popular novels and as such was fairly difficult to find reliable sources to cite for. The article may have verifiability issues in the sense that, as it stands, only contains two references. I believe the current version of this article complies with both Wikipedia’s policy on writing from a neutral point of view and now with the naming conventions after I moved it to its new title as a title that is both consistent with reliable sources and unambiguous.
Additional optional question from Þjóðólfr
16. (Briefly!) what are the three best things and what are the three worst things about Wikipedia?
A: Numbered in no particular order.
Good:
1. A massive, information rich encyclopedia free of advertising and free of charge.
2. A civil and welcoming community.
3. The right to edit anonymously.
Bad:
1. Vandalism, spam and trolling.
2. Original research.
3. Claimed ownership of articles.


General comments[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Support - Seen him about, seems cool-headed and civil. Has done some great work. — Oli OR Pyfan! 03:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support You seem competent. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Support You seem trustworthy Mr.Snoppy (talk) 04:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
    Indenting vote from indefinitely blocked user. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 14:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Weak Support You have a clean blocklog, and even if one completely discounted your huggle edits, IMHO you have more than enough contributions for adminship. I've gone through your deleted contributions for the last month and I liked most of what I saw. Judging from your tagging of attack pages for deletion I think you've imbibed the spirit of our BLP policy regardless of your comment to the BLP question. Weak because you've been here less than 6 months, and I was concerned that when you tagged this as A7 you left User talk:Orange gatorade as a redlink, however that was the only one of your tags where I spotted a lack of communication with the newbie. I also noticed two articles you tagged as A7 that would have been deleted quicker if tagged as G10. ϢereSpielChequers 13:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support As we have plenty of administrators who do little or no work with BLP's already, and they are still great at what they do work on, I think it unfair to oppose a candidate for not being an expert in that area. I have opposed !voted neutral on candidates in the past for saying that they would consult with a more experienced admin if faced with a conflict they are unsure how to handle, but now I have come to feel that opposingwithholding support for that is unfair, and hence I support promoting Jeffrey Mall to administrator. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 15:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support per Jamie and other Q5 opposes. So the editor is trustworthy, and has a concrete, definite, specific, and useful purpose for the admin utilities, but we're going to oppose because he doesn't have an opinion about a subject he's not planning on running across? And people wonder why there's an admin shortage. RayTalk 18:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Strong Support A5 notwithstanding, I see no reason to oppose this candidate. His policy knowledge is good per his answers to those related questions. I wasn't aware one had to have an opinion on a certain policy to be an admin. Addendum: Changed to Srong Support I don't think this candidates percentage of automated edits is an issue, and like has been stated, precedent HAS been set for this very issue. ArcAngel (talk) 19:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Weak Support: I agree with ArcAngel: A5 notwithstanding, I see no reason to oppose this candidate. His policy knowledge is good per his answers to those related questions. I wasn't aware one had to have an opinion on a certain policy to be an admin. He is making some great contributions to the project and I encourage him to keep it up but, perhaps in a few months and more edits. . . - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support per User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards as I find User:Jeffrey Mall/Awards pleasing if not impressive, candidate has over 12,000 edits, was made "Wikipedian of the Day" for 31 July 2009, and as candidate has never been blocked. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 22:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support After being on the fence for a few days, I have decided to support. I ran into Jeffrey a few months ago when he reverted some vandalism (greatly appreciated) on a Percy Jackson page. I've seen nothing but good from this user and he will make a fine admin. The opposes are unconvincing. Also, not everyone works on articles (content-building wise). I'm sure he'll consult with a more experienced admin about those should an issue come up in that area. We are certainly not here to tell someone where exactly to work during the free time they give to maintaining this encyclopedia; that I find quite insensitive. This user's strength is obviously in the realm of vandal-fighting. With the tools he'll be able to block users, delete pages among other things, tools that he clearly needs because he is a vandal-fighting user. His answers to all of the questions not including #5 demonstrate a firm grasp in policy. In a nutshell, I am convinced that giving Jeffrey the tools will be a net positive for the community. Good luck, Jeffrey! Airplaneman talk 01:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support based on the commonsense attitude shown in the answers to the question and the fact that RFA standards inflation is becoming very unfair. This is a candidate that would have been a shoe-in 3 years ago and the 'pedia hasn't become that hard to admin in the intervening time. We can't all write but maintenance men who know what they can and cant do properly are really hard to find. Spartaz Humbug! 15:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Strong support - five months, user wants to help the encyclopedia, and he shows a decent knowledge of policy. Shouldn't that be all that we ask from candidates? —Ed (talk • contribs) 18:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Strong support. Looks like a good admin candidate, with well-rounded experience in administrative areas. Jeffery Mall seems to understand BLP policy and agrees to enforce it (see his clarification per Question 5). I had gotten the nuance of "not having a strong opinion on something" versus "not understanding something/not enforcing something" already, but hopefully this clarification will clue-in the oppose !voters. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. Seems clueful to me. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support no reason to think they'd misuse the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support I like the new answer to Q5.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 00:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. support Looks good. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support - seems trustworthy and unlikely to misuse the tools. We can always use more help clearing the admin backlogs. (Although CAT:TWU is one of the least important ones.) Robofish (talk) 17:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. I have no reason to mistrust this user or suspect that they will do any harm as an administrator. Shereth 22:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Over 3,700 contributions to Wikipedia and gathered over 8,000 edits SUPPORT Who in their right mind thinks 3,700+ content contributions in five months is isignificant because of the ratio of 3700contentedits/8000totaledits? That's insane. I've made some pretty stupid oppose votes before, even one in the last few weeks. I have, upon a little meditation, reversed my most ignorant decisions. Hopefully some of the opposes will reconsider. I'm not sure I even had 3,700 total edits when I passed RfA in 2007. Hiberniantears (talk) 02:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support all the good reasons already taken, so it's hard to come up with a new one. Dlohcierekim 03:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support, I don't see any serious issues with this user, and I'm quite convinced that they wouldn't intentionally misuse the tools. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  22. Support Re my question: 5/6 Ain't bad - I disagree that it is always A civil and welcoming community - possibly an area where the current Admins fall short. Þjóðólfr (talk) 17:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Andrea105 (talk) 00:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support I find the opposes to be so without merit (lack of opinion on BLPs is a reason to oppose? Ratio of automated edits rather than total number of non-automated edits? Ick) I feel the need to support. I'd prefer more experience, but enough to support here. Hobit (talk) 03:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Overall, it would be a net positive to have Jeffrey as an admin. –Katerenka ☆ 09:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support - I've seen him around a bit at AfD, and I think he has the right stuff for adminship. Has my trust, and a good knowledge of policy. Would be nice if his edits were a bit less automated, and a bit more experience would help, but I don't really think it's bad enough to oppose. Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 11:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support - I completely disagree that FA or/and GA are needed to be an admin. Writers should write; contribute with your strengths rather than dilute your work by having a finger in every cookie jar. His contributions show he understands what WP is about. Understanding and having an opinion are not the same thing. His automated edits show familiarity with tool useage. His self nomination shows that he has the confidence in his work to stand up to the scrutiny of an RfA. delirious & lost ☯ TALK 16:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Not everyone has to deal with BLPs constantly. There are many policies on Wikipedia I couldn't care less about, and it is wrong to slam someone for their honest opinion (or lack of one) of a policy. The candidate did not say "I think the BLP policy is a silly one and we should not care about living people", or anything to that effect. Adminship involves many tasks, and I'm sure the user will find their way easily. Afterall, it's not rocket science. Majorly talk 17:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. SupportI believe I can lend support now. 3000 edits to me is substantial. 8000+ edits vandal fighting is still a signifigant time in fighting vandalism. Both of which are pluses to me and are not reasons to oppose. The BLP issue and my previous concern is addressed. Ottawa4ever (talk) 18:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Tim Song (talk) 23:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support, even if you won't pass, would like to see you back in a few months. I find your answers to the questions reasonable and thoughtful, and the opposes largely a version of "Not enough Portal Talk edits!" I'm interested in quality of edits and thoughtfulness of the editor, not where or how the edits were made. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Oppose. Out of your total of 12530 edits, 70% are Huggle/automated edits. This makes it difficult to determine your how well you can engage in discussion with other users. Sysop's tools are not nearly as simple to use as pushing the "space" and "q" buttons are. Not only that, I feel that five months of experience isn't nearly enough experience to be a sysop. You're making some great contributions to the project and I encourage you to keep it up but, perhaps in a few months and more edits. Sorry, FASTILY (TALK) 04:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Fastily. Just to clarify, Huggle edits were the reason I split my "edits" and "contributions" in my self nomination. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 04:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Either way, per my rfa criteria, I'm afraid I still cannot support you. -FASTILY (TALK) 05:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem, I'll be sure to give yours a read through in a short while. I had read through a few, and had seen you around, but I wasn't aware you had one (D'oh). Cheers, Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 05:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "...at least 8,000-11,000 edits from vandal fighters." 12,000 would appear to be greater than 11,000. Just saying. (I'm not voting either way) Bsimmons666 (talk) 19:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's true, but see the second to last bullet point: "A low number of automated edits relative to the user's edit count. I like to see a maximum of 35-40% automated/assisted edits - more than that and I may oppose." -FASTILY (TALK) 22:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So you're saying that it's better to have (for example) 5000 manual edits and 0 automated, then 10,000 manual and 30,000 automated. I don't quite understand that. How can using huggle degrade your non-automated edits? Sure, huggle edits might not be as good as non-automated edits, but I don't understand how they effect them...? If we decide to judge users by their automated edit count, then I think we should at least be looking at the actually numbers, rather then percentages. - Kingpin13 (talk) 13:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. Question 5 is concerning. I would expect all admins to have a much stronger attitude to BLP than that. Like it or not, all active admins will likely have to encounter BLP issues that need rectifying, and I would expect them to know, understand, and be willing to deal with them. PeterSymonds (talk) 08:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose no substantive mainspace contributions -- Samir 08:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose - Answer to Q5 not satisfactory. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 08:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose The BLP policy is one of the basic policies within wikipedia, which an admin must be aware of. If you have no opinion on it, I do not understand how you could make decisions based on it. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 09:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you check back? He has expanded upon his answer to q5, which I believe addressed your concerns above. —Ed (talk • contribs) 18:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose. Whether or not you consider yourself to be a writer, as an admin you would need to be able to enforce BLP. I could not support any candidate who does not appear either to understand BLP or recognise its importance. You are clearly hard-working and trustworthy, this is probably down to a lack of editing experience. I will be happy to support you in the future if you demonstrate a firmer grasp of policy. Rje (talk) 13:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose (moved to support) BLP issues are very important and most be understood as an admin. Someone may ask you your opinions as a admin and you should be in a position to supply an answer or resolve a conflict. Ottawa4ever (talk) 15:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand your oppose. So you're saying that he has to have an opinion on all policies (ie whether they are good/bad/ugly) to be an administrator? I thought that all he had to do was understand them. Regards, —Ed (talk • contribs) 18:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Happy to explain my position, I believe the event of dealing (and understanding) with this policy as an admin will occur and is not avoidable. In the most simplist case, Any random user can ask for advice or opinions from an admin as its an very important issue for intregity and reliability of the wiki project. As such I think an understanding of this policy is necessary. I did not get this impression in the original answer to Q5. I do however see that the expansion of the question deals with as such. I will withdraw my opposition to his nomination. Ottawa4ever (talk) 17:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose (moved from support) - The answer to Q5 is concerning, and 70% of your edits are Huggle edits. You should have an opinion on the BLP policy which an admin is aware of, and you should stop using Huggle and edit articles. Décémbér21st2012Fréak  |  Talk 15:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I find your statement "you should stop using Huggle and edit articles" rather unfair. According to my contributions I haven't used Huggle since september. On another note if you wish to have a look at some of the article work I have done, an uncomplete list of articles I have worked on can be found here. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 17:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. —Ed (talk • contribs) 18:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak oppose (moved to neutral), sorry, I cannot support an admin who does not have much awareness of the BLP policy or how it is applied. BLPs are probably the single most important content issue right now, and even if you don't work with living people much, admins ought to have a stronger stand than that, and possess the ability to handle those cases. You're otherwise a good editor, although under-experienced. Come back in a few months with broader experience and exposure to the BLP area, and you'll be ready for the tools. JamieS93 15:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Although the answers to my questions are satisfactory, I am still forced to Oppose because of the speedy deletion topic. You have made a grand total of only 18 speedy deletions and your first one was a month ago (October 15). I appreciate your other work here and wish you luck on this, however it is unfortunate I cannot support you here. Smithers (Talk) 16:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Smithers, I think you may have missed a few there as I counted about sixty speedy deletion tags in his last 250 deleted contributions; including this one from 7 September, and though I've only skimmed the earlier stuff this was in July. ϢereSpielChequers 17:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Do they have notification tags to the author? Because that is the only reason we would know if it was a speedy deletion (normal users can't view the deleted contributions of the user. I still can't view those links because I am unauthorized. Since it looks like you are an administrator, you have those privileges). Smithers (Talk) 01:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Smithers, some of them were G7s where the author had blanked a page or were corrections to other people's speedy tags, and neither of those will leave contributions other than deleted ones. But the speedy tag I mentioned from July was notified at User talk:Volcomxxx111, and this relates to the September example that I gave. Does that help? ϢereSpielChequers 20:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Somewhat. I still think my opinion unfortunately belongs to opposition. Thanks for clearing all of this up though. :-) Smithers (Talk) 01:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. Sorry, just way too many automated edits, not enough article writing experience (lack of any good or featured material), and a very poor answer to Q5. Laurinavicius (talk) 01:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand how his answer is poor; did you see his expanded answer? Also, opposing per lack of any audited content seems rather mean when he has worked on many articles before; see User:Jeffrey Mall/Orphanage. Regards, —Ed (talk • contribs) 18:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have seen his expanded answer, and it does greatly explain his viewpoint, so that relieves a third of my concerns. However, I feel that an editor should have at least some article writing experience, particularly with GA's and FA's, and relatively few automated edits, and this editor has not, as far as I am aware, worked on a single good or featured article, and more than 70% of his edits are automated. That's just too little and too much (respectively) to overlook. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 20:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose Recall pledges are made ad captandum vulgaris, and as such demonstrate a lack of trustworthiness. Hipocrite (talk) 05:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose - But moral support. Automated edits are fine, but they're discounted appropriately (because they're so quick). Given that, there's just not enough history to really feel fully comfortable. Would be very happy if you came back in a few months. Shadowjams (talk) 07:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose, In my opinion the automated edit count is far too high  IShadowed  ✰  02:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I was just wondering how that affects one's ability to be an admin. How you stated it almost makes automated edits seem bad... Airplaneman talk 04:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I highly respect Jeffrey Mall for their numerous contributions, and although of course automated edits are not "bad", wikipedia is an encyclopedic foundation for building articles. And, yes, I understand that this user has contributed tirelessly to reverting vandalism etc, in my personal opinion there are not enough article edits for adminship... yet.  IShadowed  ✰  07:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose, due to answer to question five. Yes, I have seen the expanded answer, but I still have concerns. Santa Claus of the Future (talk) 03:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you please state them? Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 03:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose The editor does important anti-vandalism and cleanup work, and IMO will not intentionally harm wikipedia if given the tools. However, I don't think he has sufficient familiarity with wikipedia's content policies, which for me is a pre-requisite for adminship. In addition to issues referenced by some other opposers, in response to Q15, he spotted the verifiability issues, but missed the non-reliable fansite source [1], unencyclopedic tone, (borderline) plagiarism, and questionable notability (the last two issues can be disputed, and I would have been satisfied if he had simply commented upon them either way). I'll perhaps be able to support in another 6-12 months, if the editor engages more with the content side of wikipedia. Abecedare (talk) 04:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose. Concerned about answers, and would like to see a bit more quality content experience. Cirt (talk) 12:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose. Per edits.----Boeing7107isdelicious|SPRiCh miT meineN PiloteN 13:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    May you please specify which ones/what kind? Airplaneman talk 02:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Huggle edits. This covers over 70% of his edits. The other 30%s are normal/Twinkle edits.----Boeing7107isdelicious|SPRiCh miT meineN PiloteN 06:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't use Twinkle by the way, even if I wanted to, it isn't compatible with my browser anyway... Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 14:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    At some point you must have used it as Soxred93's tool says you have six edits using Twinkle. ArcAngel (talk) 21:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah I did try out Twinkle a while ago when I was looking for alternative web browsers but I went back to IE8 and wasn't keen on Twinkle anyway. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 21:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose - sorry, there are just too many concerns. Maybe experience and time will ease those concerns and a later RfA will be more successful. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose Q5, especially the last part Vodello (talk) 01:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral While I understand that the editor is not a writer I do not like his answer to Q5, an admin will have to deal with BLP issues during their tenure and should likely have an opinion on the topic.RP459 (talk) 15:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral I want to support this user, he seems like a nice asset to Wikipedia with a nice sense of humor. However, BLP is a big part of Wikipedia and, in my opinion, it's neutral point of view here (especially) towards living people is what makes Wikipedia respectable. An admin should be aware of it. A8UDI 12:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Answer to Q's 4 and 5 aren't particularly satisfying, but it's entirely possible to be indifferent towards a policy whilst still upholding and enforcing said policy. I therefore don't feel it's necessary to oppose at the moment. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral I respect the answer to my question but the fact that about 70% of your edits are automated is a little odd. Perhaps you should work a little more an articles.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 15:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral: Based on BLP issues and the number of automated edits. South Bay (talk) 22:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral - Due to the high percentage of automated edits and unsatisfactory response to WP:BLP questioning leads me to remain neutral. Cocytus [»talk«] 04:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. BLPs are an issue that no admin will avoid. Stifle (talk) 11:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I asked Jeffrey to expound upon his answer to Q5, and his follow-up leaves me without the previous concerns; it's not an offense to have nothing to add to a policy, although his initial blase response to the Q comes from a lack of awareness that can be mended over time. I believe that he needs some more all-around experience (continued working on articles, participating in WP-related disussions) and spend a few more months working on the website before being ready for the role. Jeff has some real potential, but I'm not convinced that he's competent for the tools and making those decisions yet. JamieS93 13:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral Although I feel the candidate has potential, I do not feel that they are ready for the mop yet. I would suggest reading the comments on this AfD, and trying again in the future. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 20:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutral I like a lot of what I'm seeing in this candidate's history, from their work on de-orphaning and wikifying articles to their anti-vandalism efforts. I also like the clear plan Jeffrey has for how he will use his admin tools. That said, there are an awful lot of automated edits in his history, and while there's nothing wrong with that, I don't think he's demonstrated the requisite policy knowledge or experience. I'd gladly support a future RfA, however. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Neutral - I've waited some time to make a decision whether to support or oppose, and finally decided that neither was appropriate. I don't have any big concerns about this editor, the expanded answer to question 5 shows awareness of the importance of WP:BLP so I'm not worried about that. The non-automated edit count is low but not dramatically low (not the sub-3,000 you see on some self-noms). I suppose the combination of low contributions and not-strong answers leads me to not have enough confidence to recommend the mop at this time. -- Atama頭 04:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Jeffrey_Mall&oldid=1079632561"