Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jenks24

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

Jenks24

117/2/0. Closed as successful. WilliamH (talk) 22:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Nomination

Jenks24 (talk · contribs) – Hello all. I present Jenks24, who's been here a little over two years, with 39k+ well distributed edits. I'd seen him often around requested move discussions, offering knowledgable, policy-based opinions; a speciality area in which we need more admin help. I learned he was not an admin the other day when he closed a move discussion noting "(non-admin closure)". I investigated, and liked what I found. He's written substantive, reliably sourced articles such as ‪Kate Hollywood‬, ‪Chris Lamb‬, ‪William Flintoft‬ and ‪Donald Duffy‬. He's closed 23 uncontroversial AfDs and participated in about 400 others where he's not a potted plant. In most I checked, the discussion closed in the same posture as he !voted. There's TfD, CfD, RfD and MfD participation as well. His CSD taggings appear spot on and I found no declines in his last 10,000 edits (his taggings are easy to search because he always uses "CSD" in the edit summary). While doing that I found this encouraging A7 removal. I also checked twenty CSD taggings for user notification and he had warned the creator in each case. He certainly knows the ropes. But what convinced me to offer to nominate was the intelligent, sober and amicable discussions I found when I scrolled through his talk page archives and looked at a bunch of random talk page and board discussions. He appears level-headed, good humored, windmill tilting adverse, someone who's wont to discuss rather than argue and to change his opinion if convinced. I believe he is competent to use the tools, unlikely to delete the main page and would be an asset to the project if granted adminship.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, thanks for the kind words. Jenks24 (talk) 22:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

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: Primarily I intend to work at requested moves (RM) as it is the area where I have the most experience and it is also one of the admin areas that is consistently understaffed. I'll preface my next comments by saying it is one my pet peeves when someone goes through RfA saying 'I only want the tools to do X' and seemingly the next week they are doing bucketloads of Y and Z which were never mentioned at the RfA. So, while I anticipate most of my admin time will used at RM, if this RfA is successful it would not be outside the realm of possibility to see me working at the following admin areas: histmerges; XfDs, primarily AfD, WP:CFDS, TfD and CfD; WP:ERRORS; WP:ITN; and blocking and protecting in the rare case that something requiring either of those actions comes across my watchlist. Jenks24 (talk) 22:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

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

A: I like to think that almost every edit I've made has at least had a small positive impact on the encyclopedia, but to answer the question I'd have to say that my real content contributions have been my best. I've developed into a bit of a gnome over the last year or so, just making MoS fixes, small copyedits, adding little bits of info and refs, etc., but earlier on I created a few articles (30 or so according to this tool) and, although they aren't perfect, they are (IMHO) well referenced, fairly thorough and all at least start class. If I had to pick one article, it would be Ken Hall (footballer), which is the only GA I've written and, I believe, nicely demonstrates that, at least for Aussie rules, WP:NSPORTS is a pretty good guideline. Jenks24 (talk) 22:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

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: Of course, I don't think it's possible to spend so much time on Wikipedia without getting involved in a few disputes, though I wouldn't say that any of them have caused me stress, maybe mild frustration at the most. Every now and then I do find myself typing frustrated responses, but when that happens I try to think to myself "will this improve the discussion or just make both sides more aggravated?" before hitting the save page button. If the answer is the latter I generally close the tab/browser/computer and focus on something else until I'm able to make a level-headed comment. Jenks24 (talk) 22:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Carrite:

4. Have you ever used another screen name to edit Wikipedia? In so, what were those names?

A. Nope, I edited as an IP for a while before registering, but this is the only account I've ever used. Jenks24 (talk) 02:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Carrite (talk) 19:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Keepscases:

5. Which Australian rules football player do you think would fare best in the National Football League next season? Why?

A: Fantastic question! The obvious choice would have to be Buddy Franklin; he could play at a number of positions, has tremendous athleticism and aerobic capacity, and has the height and bulk to hold his own physically – I see him as a very similar athlete to LeBron James. As a bit of a left field choice, I reckon Jimmy Bartel, who is a fantastic contested mark for his size, would be a pretty successful wide receiver. Jenks24 (talk) 03:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Drmies:

6. An IP editor persistently removes (third time, when you look at it) "information" from a BLP; on Recent changes it's marked "Section blanking". They've been rolled back by two different editors who left no edit summary; the IP hasn't left one either. What do you do?

A: Well, the first thing to do would be to look at the information that the IP was removing. There are a few different scenarios that I could then envisage happening:

(1) If the section that was being blanked is unsourced, then the IP is in the right per WP:V and, more importantly, WP:BLP. I'd leave a note on the two editors' talk pages asking if there was something I'd missed because it looked like the IP was correct and should not have been reverted. I'd then look at the info and if it seemed uncontroversial and useful to the biography I'd see if I could find a source to reference it, possibly leaving a note on the IP's talk if I could verify it. If it seemed like it might be a violation of the BLP policy in any way, or I was unable to verify it, I would not restore the info.

(2) If the information is poorly sourced (e.g. unreliable sources), a potential BLP vio even if sourced (e.g. revealing private information about a non-public person in someone else's BLP), looked like it might be a violation of some other policy (say WP:SYNTH), and/or just generally looked a little fishy (e.g. info you generally wouldn't expect to see in a biography), then I would leave notes on the talk pages of the three editors so far involved asking if they could go into some detail about why they made the edits they did. As the article is a BLP, I would default to leaving the potentially problematic information out of the article until the situation was resolved.

(3) If the information is well sourced (i.e. to reliable sources) and didn't look like it could be at all problematic to me, then I would probably assume the edits to be vandalism. I would revert and leave a templated warning (probably the level 1 blanking one) via Twinkle.

(4) If the information is well sourced (i.e. to reliable sources), written in a NPOV tone and doesn't seem to be a violation of policy/guideline/common sense, but is perhaps quite controversial or negative (as often happens in high profile bios), then I would still revert the IP, though I would use the Twinkle option of leaving an informative edit summary. I'd then leave a note on the IP's talk page explaining a little about our policies, asking if there was anything specific that was wrong with the section in question, and informing them that it would probably be more productive for them if they worked with other editors on the talk page to, say, alter the wording a little, or add a sentence or two that presents an opposing viewpoint.

Anyway, those are what I would consider the most common scenarios that could happen, though I'm sure there could be others. Basically, the point I'm trying to convey is that there isn't a specifically right or wrong way to deal with a situation like this; every case should be judged on its merits, taking policy and common sense into account, before acting. Jenks24 (talk) 23:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Underlining denotes changes made after the original save of this response – they were what I had intended to write, but missed when proofreading. Jenks24 (talk) 01:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from yutsi:

7. I've noticed from looking over your contributions that you are very active on Wikipedia. If you became an admin, do you honestly think that you would continue this pattern? Also, would you continue to work on content as well as maintenance?

A. Seeing as it's almost 1 am where I am and I'm still online, I guess I'd have to agree that I am quite active. In the foreseeable future, yes, I certainly plan to remain active and don't see why that would change. Further than that, who knows? I would like to keep up my current levels of activity, but if the choice ever comes down to Wikipedia and something in "real life", then I'm afraid Wikipedia will come second. To your second question, yes I will continue work on content (someone give me a clip around the ears if my mainspace contributions ever fall below 50%) and, to be honest, if my Wikipedia time did become more limited I'd probably cut back on the maintenance stuff rather than the content side. Jenks24 (talk) 14:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

General comments

• Links for Jenks24: Jenks24 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Jenks24 can be found here.

---

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

Discussion

• Stats on talk. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Support

1. Support per my nomination.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
2. Support. Been waiting for this one. Jenks24 would be a real asset at WP:RM. Favonian (talk) 22:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
3. Support. I've had a few interactions with the candidate, and in all cases he's been sensible, reasonable and easy to talk to, all good things for an administrator to be. 28bytes (talk) 22:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
4. Support. I think we have too many admins, but better more potentially good ones than bad ones. Malleus Fatuorum 22:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
5. Support Seems like a good candidate, seems to respond to disputes positively, has reasonable experience in a quasi-administrative areas where the tools would be useful. Monty₈₄₅ 22:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
6. Support AFD !votes agree with the result or are found as no consensus 92.8% of the time. 100% edit summary usage. Active in content creation, with over 100 edits to four separate articles. Has created 36 articles (including DAB pages, excluding redirects). Understands when to revert things as a good faith edits [1] [2] [3]. Evidence of correct procedural closure [4]. Finally, support due to the glowing nomination by Fuhghettaboutit. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

   I think you've over-egged the pudding with "Active in content creation, with over 100 edits to four separate articles"; that's hardly breaking sweat. Malleus Fatuorum 23:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

   Fo shizzle. That's a bathroom break, not a job. Drmies (talk) 23:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

   The 36 created articles were included in there too, and it is a lot more content creation than I've seen in recent RfA's. In addition, I wouldn't say that he is the most active, but I made the comment because he certainly is active. As far as I'm concerned, if someone creates articles with relative frequency and spends any good amount of time editing articles they are "active" in content creation. Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

   I think you're mistaken, but I won't fight you over it, this time at least. Malleus Fatuorum 10:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

7. Support Good solid content contributions coupled with a calm rational demeanor indicate the presence of an adult to me, and someone I'd like to see with a few extra tools to work with. — Ched :  ?  22:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
8. Umm, wait, what? Jenks24 isn't an admin? Support, obviously. He does good work in RM, which is occasionally backlogged and could use another active admin. Plenty of experience, and clear evidence of possessing the necessary clue. Good luck. Jafeluv (talk) 23:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
9. Support. It's about time. Kauffner (talk) 23:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
10. Support - seen this user around doing a good job. Mato (talk) 23:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
11. Support. I also have seen this user over the past year and a half (I used to see them a lot more; maybe we're in different areas now?) and saw good work. RM is an area that heeds help, certainly. Drmies (talk) 23:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

    Maybe you stopped hanging around with the plebs once you became an admin? :) Jenks24 (talk) 23:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

12. Support Looks good to me. -Scottywong| yak _ 23:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
13. Support. Good contributions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
14. Support - Clean block log, no indications of assholery. Looks like a content creator rather than a vandal figher, so I'm not exactly sure why a plunger and a snake and a pipe wrench are really necessary... Carrite (talk) 01:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
15. Support - No doubt at all. Great record of contributions... →TheSpecialUser^Talk_{Contributions}* 02:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
16. Support Why not?--Morning Sunshine (talk) 02:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
17. Stephen 02:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
18. When I saw your edit on my watchlist, I assumed it was for a RfB! You seem to be a great fit and really should already be an admin. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
19. You mean to say he's not already? Master&Expert (Talk) 03:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
20. I thought you were an admin already! →Bmusician 03:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
21. Support Keepscases (talk) 04:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
22. Support, per nominator. --MisterGugaruz (talk) 06:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
23. Support Like many of the editors above, I thought that Jenks24 was already an admin. He or she will use the tools sensibly. Nick-D (talk) 08:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

    It's "he", just FYI. Jenks24 (talk) 23:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

24. Support per nom. --John (talk) 08:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
25. Support. Highly competent user. I wanted to find a question to ask him, but I couldn't come up with one that wouldn't be an insult to his intelligence. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
26. Strong support Per above, and a thoroughly decent chap to boot.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
27. Good luck. –BuickCenturyDriver 11:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
28. Unlikely to abuse tools. Hipocrite (talk) 11:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
29. Absolutely. - filelakeshoe 12:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
30. Support. Yep, looks like the kind of person we want as an admin. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
31. Support because of this user's long and varied edit history, his experience with admin-related tasks, and because of Fuhghettaboutit's personal opinion that this user is unlikely to delete the main page. However, I am going to request that Jenks24 consider his userpage. I continually think of new users who look at the pages of admins and expect them to be welcoming role models. While Jenks24 has a friendly userpage, I think that if a new user were to go there then that user would not get information from that page on how they should interact with Jenks24. I appreciate all Wikipedia contributors, but I especially appreciate those who invite visitors to their page to get involved in something or anything. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

    Thanks, Blue Rasberry. That's a good point about the userpage and I'll look into making it a little more newbie friendly. Jenks24 (talk) 23:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

    I love your userpage. All you'd need do is add a short note. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

32. Support. Sold on the nomination. An intention to work in the backlogged area of WP:RM is admirable. Good answer to Q5. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
33. Support. Might as well join the rush. Intothatdarkness (talk) 13:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
34. Qualified candidate. Courcelles 13:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
35. Support - Can't find any reason to oppose. KTC (talk) 14:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
36. Support per my guidelines. Achowat (talk) 14:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
37. Support. Jenks24 makes a solid candidate for adminship. He's spot on :) Mr. Wikipediania ^Talk 14:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
38. Support. I've had a few interactions with Jenks24 and they've all been positive. His contribution history is great, and a good admin he'll make. —SpacemanSpiff 15:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
39. Support I've found him to be a sound chap in my interactions with him. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
40. Support We need extra hell! :) (Stolen from Cyberpower)--Ankit Maity^Talk_Contribs 17:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
41. Support Seems like a fine candidate. Fuhghettaboutit seems to have done a pretty thorough contribs check and I trust his judgement. Pol430 talk to me 17:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
42. Support - No concerns. The candidate seems level-headed and well-versed in our policies and guidelines. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 17:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
43. Support Impressed me with his knowledge in all of our encounters. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
44. Yes. Good attitude. Explains things clearly, calmly and politely when challenged. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
45. Support I see no reason why not. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
46. Support, looks good! -- Lord Roem (talk) 19:16, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
47. Support, I found this editor to be collegiate in my recent interaction with him. No reason to think he can't be trusted with the tools. Mjroots (talk) 20:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
48. Support no apparent downside, no reason to oppose = a reason to support! QU ^TalkQu 20:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
49. Support Per Fluffernutter, who is to Wikipedia discussions what the Harvard Law Faculty is to American elections.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
50. Support No reason the think this user would abuse the tools --rogerd (talk) 21:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
51. Secret ^account 21:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
52. Support for the following reasons: (1) I like his answers to the questions above, in particular to q3. His responses are well-written, well-reasoned, and honest. They also reflect well on his temperament. We could do with some less temperamental admins. (2) I looked at his early contributions, and he started gingerly changing succession boxes in many articles. I like the fact that he wasn't bold and that he concentrated in a certain area. Too many editors' initial contributions go overboard before they've really had a chance to get their feet wet. I also noticed that he didn't use edit summaries in the beginning, but in the following month he was using them, although it took him a while longer to use them more consistently (I believe EVERY edit should have an edit summary, no matter how brief, and even for a minor edit). Somewhere along the line, he figured that out, which shows the ability to learn and to adapt. (3) his later contributions show a continuing evolution in his familiarity with Wikipedia and in his branching into new things (creating articles and categories, improving templates). He seems to be a very well-rounded fellow with a fair amount of insight as to what he's good at and when to tackle new things.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
53. Support. Usefully clueful. -— Isarra ༆ 02:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
54. Support per all the above. Ishdarian 02:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
55. Support per nom; well-rounded editor. Spencer^T♦C 04:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
56. Support. As the nom says, he's clearly not a potted plant. Jenks is a fine editor who exhibits pretty sound judgement; also can be relied on from time to time to calm rough waters. I have found him pleasant and helpful generally, and specifically at 2011 Nobel Peace Prize, where he has provided sterling service. I'm not sure why he would want the mop, but I believe he merits it at his own choosing. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:55, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
57. Support Trustworthy, compelling use for tools. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
58. Support. The contribution is good, and the answers are reasonable, I do not see any problems.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:58, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
59. Support. Looks good. Torreslfchero (talk) 11:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
60. Support per nom and pretty much everybody else. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
61. Support - Don't see any issues. Rlendog (talk) 15:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
62. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
63. Weak support per my usual standards. My only concerns are (a) per BlueRasberry -- the user page "issue", and (b) I don't see any rollbacker or similar experience. Bearian (talk) 20:55, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

    Dude, you have the most arbitrary standards I've ever seen. I actually am surprised at the lack of rollback rights, I assume he just never cared to request them (his reviewer and autopatrolled rights were given to him without request) because he uses Twinkle's rollback feature. (Why Twinkle can let anybody use rollback, I don't know) Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

    Yes, just echoing Ryan – I've never felt the need to get rollback as Twinkle offers the same functionality with more flexibility. Jenks24 (talk) 02:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

64. Support - Good answers, good contributions, I don't see any issues up front to be concerned about. — GabeMc (talk) 23:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
65. Support excellent contributions especially in WP:RM and CSD tagging.--Mark91it's my world 23:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
66. Support. I have been impressed with Jenks at RMs. Very knowledgeable, and ready to consider all sides fairly. Without getting too political here, I'd say that's desperately needed. Looking forward to him assuming the greater responsibility that comes with the tools. A quiver of hesitation over apparent failure to consider less obvious implications of Buddy's 2011 knee incident (see question 5); but on balance, not a problem. Noetica^Tea? 23:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

    Hah, Buddy's knee will be fine and any sport where he doesn't have to kick for goal is surely a positive at this point. Jenks24 (talk) 02:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

67. Support Will be a great addition to the current number of admins. Baseball Watcher 00:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
68. Support Seems clueful, appropriately cautious and level headed, which I think are excellent qualities for someone seeking the bit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
69. Support Allround suitability, especially seeing the fair, level answer to resolved concern below, the particularly thorny issue in the area Jenks24 proposes to be primarily active. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
70. Support - No concerns. Happy to see his well-balanced answer about diacritics below. WP:Requested moves could benefit from an additional admin who could be expected to close contentious debates in a diplomatic manner. EdJohnston (talk) 03:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
71. Support because of his experience and answers above-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 06:16, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
72. Support. Looks to have a great deal of experience and the oppose brought up did not bother me. Best of luck! Malinaccier (talk) 13:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
73. Strong support- After looking at your consistently high-quality contributions, and reading over some of your talk page comments, I believe that you would make a very fine administrator. You're very well-rounded, and you seem to be both technically savvy and very civil, so I couldn't imagine you abusing the rights given to you.--yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 14:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
74. Easy. There are some candidates who make you honestly wonder what's so difficult about RfA. Bags of clue and will be of a great help with the mop. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
75. Sure. Seems like a reasonably thoughtful chappie. Can't ask for much more than that. --regentspark (comment) 16:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
76. Support - I don't know him a lot, but it seems that he's agreeable enough to be an admin for Wikipedia. Best wishes ●Mehran ^Debate● 17:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
77. Always glad to see Jenks24's comments. He's thoughtful and even-keeled. Dohn joe (talk) 18:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
78. Strong support This user has experienced a lot in editing Wikipedia and has been able to mingle with other editors, so he is now ready to handle the tools. good luck! Jedd Raynier wants to talk with you. 02:40, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
79. Support. He knows what he's doing and is unlikely to perform as an admin as bad as his favourite footy team is performing this year. Very useful and valued member of WP:AFL & WP:Australia. The-Pope (talk) 02:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
80. Support per the professionally written nomination. Minima© (talk) 07:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
81. Support All-round good stuff. Plutonium27 (talk) 10:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
82. Support for the all-round great standard of work to the project already. — sparklism ^hey! 11:03, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
83. Support For oodles of common sense. Rich Farmbrough, 13:18, 25 May 2012 (UTC).
    
84. Support -- Good candidate. Wagino 20100516 (talk) 13:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
85. Support. In addition to the comments above indicating general cluefulness, the random contribs that I checked all looked very good. No concerns here. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
86. Support Basically everything has been said so its hard to be unique now, no abuse history and always trying to improve Wikipedia is the most important thing. Working in undesirable areas but decidedly important and unglorious work is a good thing. Wikipedia needs more admins that do these tasks. Jenks24 seems like a good addition. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
87. Support no concerns. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 15:40, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
88. Support...No evidence this candidate will abuse the tools or position.MONGO 17:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
89. Support Has been around since April 2010 and see no concerns.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:38, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
90. Support He isn't an admin already?--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 19:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
91. Support I see no reason why Jenks24 wouldn't make a good Admin. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 21:38, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
92. Support Of course. Add me to the list of those who thought he was one already. Neotarf (talk) 23:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
93. Support.PumpkinSky talk 02:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
94. Support – Can't find any reason to oppose. I think he'll make a good admin. — Bill william compton^Talk 05:46, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
95. Support without equivocation. My76Strat (talk) 07:21, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
96. Support Seems like a good move...Modernist (talk) 12:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
97. Me and him have butted heads in the past, and he's always been cordial and willing to talk things through; he's ended up looking better than I did at times. As a former arb I'm not used to that kind of demeanor; will make a great admin. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:20, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
98. Support - Knows what he's doing, seems to handle himself well and has obviously good intentions. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:33, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
99. No red flags here. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:53, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
100. Support per review of randomly-selected contributions, answers to questions, and previous interactions. No concerns. Also, I think, WP:100. --joe decker^{talk to me} 20:14, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
101. Support Well-rounded experience, demeanor, answers to questions all point to a top-drawer candidate. Easy call.--Hokeman (talk) 22:25, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
102. Support. I can't see any reason to oppose, but it's clear that he's qualified for the tools.--Slon02 (talk) 23:13, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
103. Support A fully qualified candidate that I'm happy to support. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 00:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
104. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 03:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
105. Support Happy to weclome him to the broom closet, and can only advise thet he use the mop carefully. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
106. Sure. Good luck. Steven Zhang ^Talk 08:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
107. Support This looks like a great candidate - I fully endorse BO; talk 08:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
108. Support - Very professional editor, should make a great Admin. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
109. Support - likely to be net positive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
110. Support - looks okay to me. Deb (talk) 17:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
111. Support. mabdul 18:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
112. Support - for more reasons than I can be bothered to list. I've done my research and all the other supporters and the nominator have posted everything I would have said. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
113. Support. I have a lot of respect for Fluffernutter, and I looked carefully at the reasons for her oppose. Her first diff (not so much the rest) does indeed give me pause. But when I look at the totality of the picture, this seems more like a one-off than a pattern, and I'm certainly not looking for perfection. Therefore, I conclude that this is a clear net positive. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
114. Strong Support I've seen this user around; and this editor won't go wrong with the buttons. So a +1 from me. (Not a Google+ +1, remember) :P Dipankan ^{(Have a chat?)} 16:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
115. Support- Here for the right reasons. Dru of Id (talk) 17:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
116. Oppose This user just has way too many supports and it's freaking me out. ;)—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 18:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
117. Strong Support Jenks24 has provided good answers to most of the questions above. They know in which areas they are experienced and will be using the administrator tools in those areas correctly and responsibly. Their fine contributions to the project, knowledge of all the basic policies and guidelines, good article creation and content work, and also excelling in their relevant admin areas proves it and makes them a unique user which are be valuable asset to the community and the project as a whole. Huge amount of faith shown by many of the most experienced and trusted users of the project make no doubt that they are a great candidate for becoming an Administrator. TheGeneralUser (talk) 21:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak oppose. Pretty much the only place I'd come across Jenks prior to this RFA was reading the pages related to the recent Rich Farmbrough Arbcom case , and I was distinctly unimpressed by his behavior there. Though there's no single diff I can point to and say "there, see?", and Jenks's presence hardly registered on the scale of "things that made that case angsty and generally unpleasant for all parties", commentary like this and this give me the impression that in tense situations, Jenks might be more prone to poking people with a sharp stick than to attempting to defuse the situation, and to my mind, one of the biggest failures of our admin corps is that too many of its members seem to have been absent on the day they taught the class on "How not to inflame a situation". This comment also gives me slight pause with regard to Jenks's apparent position on editing through full protection (though it may well be that I'm more conservative than the community in this, to me it reads as "editing through full protection is ok unless you have specific reason to think it will upset someone", which—again, to me, perhaps I'm weird in this—indicates a possible tendency to wield admin powers in an unbecoming manner).

   Those things said, however, everything else I'm seeing in my research about Jenks now checks out well, so though I'm opposing because my concerns about temperament are most important to me, I think Jenks would do a more than adequate job as an admin in other areas. Jenks, if this RFA passes, as it looks likely to do at the moment, I would suggest that you pay particular attention to your comments in heated situations. Be aware that what you say (and what I say, and what that other guy says...) has the power to affect a situation, and that what feels like blowing off steam or snarking a little bit to you/me/other dude can actually have a significant negative effect on the trajectory of a dispute. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

   FWIW, I think "editing through full protection is ok unless you have specific reason to think it will upset someone" is a pretty reasonable approach, at least regarding protected templates. (Editing protected articles is another matter.) The vast majority of templates are protected not because of any content dispute, but simply because we don't want to make it easy for vandals or careless people to break something that's used in a bunch of places. I occasionally improve protected templates and it's never occurred to me to ask permission first. (And I haven't received any complaints so far.) I think Jenks' comment on the nuance between editing protected articles and editing protected templates is actually very apt. 28bytes (talk) 16:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

   I have to say Jenks contributions showed humanity and common sense, unlike those of many. It seems a very strange oppose, and I would hope that Fluffer (who has generally commanded respect when I have seen contributions to discussions elsewhere) would withdraw it. Rich Farmbrough, 21:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC).
   

2. Oppose Seems to have been one of the main players in the yogurt/yoghurt war. He may be too involved to be administering article moves, in which the issue is often a fight over the nominal title for an article. Warden (talk) 17:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

   Yes, I did participate in that discussion. I'm not sure how much of a main player I was – I opposed and when my vote was questioned I answered. As to being too involved, I'd like to make it crystal clear that I would never close RMs (or any other discussions, such as XfDs) that I have participated in. Jenks24 (talk) 00:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

   I think that is unfair. The so-called lame page-move wars are due to process and procedure inadequacies in the administration of WP:RM discussions. There is an attempt at major reform of WP:RM on the cusp of implementation going on at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Closure review. Perhaps you could contribute? We need more participation at WP:RM, not criticism of the few already struggling there. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

   Myself, I observed the yoghurt dispute from afar and was briefly tempted to join in but resisted because the dispute was quite unimportant. There is too much time wasted on Wikipedia in such futile conflicts - see WP:LIGHTBULB. To become involved in such disputes seems a poor trait for a would-be admin and, following my usual safety-first thinking, it seems enough to cast a negative !vote. Other editors who have observed more positive attributes of the candidate cast their !votes accordingly and so, through these various viewpoints, we may hope to achieve a reasonable aggregate opinion. Warden (talk) 14:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Neutral

Concern - Jenks24 says "Primarily I intend to work at requested moves (RM) as it is the area where I have the most experience." I have to say my impression of Jenks24 away from RM is extremely high, and if he hadn't said this then I wouldn't have any concern. I don't think it will have escaped anyone's attention (except that it had escaped mine until 6 weeks ago) that one of the most problematic and tetchy areas on RM is the subject of East European names. And closing RMs on this subject is extremely difficult, as an example I give the close of Talk:Dominik Halmosi (part of the Czech Extraliga hockey-names debacle which I blissfully missed). I don't have a problem with that close per se, just raising it as an illustration of the difficulties any admin who "primarily intends to work at requested moves (RM)" will face. In view of this concern I'd like to ask Jenks24 a question:

Question: - Jenks24, when confronted with a RM to anglicize an East European living person's name (meaning a Latin-alphabet one per Article titles / Foreign names and anglicization / examples Besançon, Søren Kierkegaard and Göttingen, and where there's no complication of passport-change or WP:STAGENAME) would you let pass a RM simply on the basis of 'votes' arguing that the majority of English-language sources (not just websites and tabloids, but often scholarly books) remove accents from East European living person's names (which they undeniably do). To take a hypothetical example; if the 'votes' had been different at the RM Talk:Lech_Wałęsa/Archives/2012/April#Move_request, 40x for English newspaper-MOS, 10x for Chicago-MOS and Polish sources, would you (knowing that 99.99% of en.wp Polish BLPs are currently at Polish spelling) have closed with move → Lech Walesa? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

That's a good question, but my honest to God answer is that I won't be closing any RMs that have to do with the addition or removal of diacritics – I think both 'sides' would agree that I've expressed a clear opinion on the issue many times and would be considered involved. That said, if for some reasons there's a gun to my head and I have to close that RM, I would close have closed it as "moved". I didn't count the votes, but there seem to be about as many for as against, so no clear numerical majority. The thing that tips the consensus to "moved", IMO, is that the support votes have all made reference to policy and guideline and the few opposes that did the same were clearly refuted (e.g. "WP:UE support the use of diacritcs" – "no, WP:UE allows the use of diacritics" and so on). The basic rationale from the opposers was as appeal to IAR (though they did not say that explicitly), basically saying that a move would be detrimental despite what the policies say – this is not an unreasonable argument, but the problem I had with it is that it was not clearly explained how or why it would be detrimental, only that it would be "wrong" and "dumbing down".

Now it's worth noting that the RM you provided is from 2010 and since then those who support diacritics have developed much better arguments that do refer to the relevant policies and guidelines (you, In ictu oculi, being a prime example of this) and if you picked a diacritics RM from this year, I think it likely that I would consider it "no consensus". As a final note, I think the general community consensus has also changed since 2010, from "diacritics should only be used if the strict common name" to "we, the community, cannot come close to finding a consensus on this issue" (see 2011 RfC). Jenks24 (talk) 02:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Jenks, thanks very much for the full answer. On the basis that "involved" means you will not be closing any diacritic related RMs then I have no objection to your RfA and have already added Support above (congratulations, btw). However, I'd like some clarification on the comment about making reference to policy (which I think you're making in relation to the Talk:Lech_Wałęsa/Archives/2012/April#Move_request not Talk:Dominik Halmosi RM), as you raise the often misread WP:UE (for those who don't follow RM we frequently see editors 'voting' "Anglicize per WP:USEENGLISH" etc. in these discussions) and what you're saying is, I take it, you'd ignore 'votes' where someone is citing a guideline they have misread. But what about the case where a WP guideline has simply been editwarred. I've found twice in the last month that having cited accuracy guidance at WP:AT and diacritics guidance at WP:MOSPN that when I went to check, the guidance had vanished - those taking a position in favour of tabloid MOS and against Eastern European names had in some cases gone from being argued down at RM or RfC and gone and edited out or deleted the MOSPN or AP:AT guideline. Discussion at RM is fine, but it is a lot easier for a group with a certain view to edit a guideline, such as WP:AT or MOSPN, than to get a change through RM. What is your take on this? How can you, or anyone, be a good admin at RM when the guidelines affecting RM can be changed more easily than an article move? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

First, thanks for your support – it really is quite humbling that someone who I've disagreed with so often has that confidence in me. Your questions are good ones and the best suggestion I can give is that you say "policy X says Y" and then the next thing you know there has been edit warring on the policy and another editor comes along and says "actually, it says Z", then your best bet is to show that the policy or guideline is being edit warred and that there is discussion about it at the policy's talk page. If there's no consensus at the policy page, then it's likely that RM will also end as no consensus, but I guess that's better than it ending up going against you. As a final note, I was just looking through the RM list and found Talk:Hegesippe Legitimus#Requested move, which I would close as "moved". Jenks24 (talk) 03:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Well we've only (frequently) disagreed on this one area, which with yourself as a self-confessed Aussie-rules football fan and my interests being religious history and classical music is not totally unsurprising, that shouldn't stand in the way of supporting someone who will be a good admin. I would say however that the example you've just picked, the first black French MP, would illustrate that your reading "we, the community, cannot come close to finding a consensus on this issue" is not correct. The community evidently does have consensus when it's someone like Hégésippe Jean Légitimus (1868-1944), at x00,000s of articles on "German for German politicians, Turkish for Turkish rivers, Portuguese for Brazilian towns etc." demonstrate, it's only when certain WProjects or Users get out of line in establishing a bubble-MOS for their own in-universe articles that conflict is generated with the broader community (I'm not just talking about tennis names or ice-hockey names, the same is true for religious, national, or indeed any special interest group) I would view, though my opinion doesn't have any particular direction since I've already fully supported your RfA, that when an issue comes down to the last 0.01% of articles in any area being made a rearguard action for any cause, then "we, the community, cannot come close to finding a consensus" needs to change to "we, the community, are going to go with the 90% of Users/articles/edits, shut up." Anyway that's not a question that's a reply. Congratulations. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen the argument that because we have however many thousand articles that use diacritics we have a de facto community consensus, but I've also seen that refuted by someone who said that the vast majority of those articles were moved en masse and without discussion once Wikipedia moved on from ASCII (not sure how accurate that is as I wasn't around then). I see the point you're making about WikiProjects, but is interesting to note that the ice hockey guideline is pro diacritics, while the tennis guideline is against, and yet both caused a decent amount of grief. Sometimes you can't win either way. I wouldn't necessarily go as far as calling it a "rear guard action", but I agree that in the last six months the winds have begun changing in how these RMs usually pan out. Who knows, maybe in six months or a year a new diacritics RfC will get up and I'll happily support diacritics RMs. Jenks24 (talk) 07:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

FWIW the history of RM in this matter is still there: e.g. the 'upgrading' to Lech Wałęsa happened in August 2005, someone used the majority/tabloid English sources MOS argument to propose a RM for a lower MOS in December 2005, which was quickly dispatched by 10x unanimous oppose votes, the next RM to lower MOS, again on the basis of majority/tabloid English sources MOS argument was in Dec 2010, 11x to stay with Polish/Chicago MOS, 8x to majority English sources MOS, much closer though perhaps the high tide of the majority/tabloid English sources MOS argument. Similar conflicts between "this is an encyclopedia" and "my newspaper/church magazine/comic/sports website/Facebook/Macedonian driver's license" are present constantly on RM, and I would hope that any new active RM admin would err to the encyclopedic over the populist in close decisons. Otherwise RM can dispense with admins entirely and vote as American Idol. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:26, 25 May 2012 (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.