Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jersey Devil 2

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

Jersey Devil[edit]

Final (67/14/4); Ended 05:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Jersey Devil (talk · contribs) - I have been an editor on Wikipedia since May 2005 but began editing strongly since December 2005. I decided to try for a second RFA after a suggestion to do so by User:Zleitzen. [1] On content-related work I am active on Peru-related articles where I have for about a year now maintained the Peru Portal and the Peru Wikiproject. I've also worked on other articles related to Latin America as well as New Jersey and Pacifica Radio Network related articles. I have also made small contributions to Mathematics-related articles which I intend to increase as my Mathematics education increases. On non-content aspects of Wikipedia I have been quite active on Articles for Deletion as well as Request for Adminship. I should also disclose that I have had one previous RFA in July 2006 which failed by a vote of 45/21/9. I think major issues brought up in that RFA, such as a failure to use edit summaries, are no longer major issues. Feel free to ask any questions, I'd be happy to answer.--Jersey Devil 06:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I accept my self-nomination.--Jersey Devil 06:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I believe I would spend most of my time as an Administrator closing Articles for Deletion debates. I would also try to keep a close eye on the Administrators' Noticeboard. From my own experience as a user it can be quite disappointing when one needs to report another user whom is being abusive to others and not being able to get a response from an administrator. While I admit that the system has vastly improved since early 2006, it still needs to be a bit more responsive to users' complaints. I'd also put in some work on the Categories for discussion, who's backlog needs serious attention.--Jersey Devil 05:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Yes, in particular I am pleased with my work on the Ollanta Humala article which has since been tagged as a Good Article. In particular what I enjoyed about writing that article is that most of the writing was done during the 2006 Presidential Election and I think it helped inform many people. I am also pleased with my work on the Alan Garcia article (the current Peruvian President) which I have helped keep up-to-date, covering what for me are local issues with the Cory Booker article, my contributions to the Ricardo Alarcón de Quesada, and the Pacifica Radio Network article.--Jersey Devil 06:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 was involved in one conflict in early 2006 with another user. I felt that the user was breaking with Wikipedia policies at the time by removing afd templates, using false "rv vandalism" edit summaries, using personal attacks and sending messages to other users in order to gain support in afds. At this point I should also disclose that the user launched an RFC against me in which the consensus (with 24 votes in favor) was that the RFC was baseless. With that said, this conflict occurred a long time ago and I have been in very minimal contact with the user since. I also can not recall any other conflicts of such a nature in my time at Wikipedia.--Jersey Devil 06:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from Malber (talk · contribs)

4. What are the five pillars of Wikipedia and why are they important?
A: Basically the five essential rules to Wikipedia is that it is an encyclopedia, has a neutral point-of-view, is free content, has a code of conduct and does not have firm rules. They are introduced to all new users in the very first "Welcome" template they receive on their talk page. They are the basis of Wikipedia from which all other policies and guildlines derive. By "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" we mean first and foremost that the goal of the project is to create a source of all human knowledge not just a social networking site but a serious project. By Wikipedia has a neutral point of view we mean that the goal of our articles should be that they be neutral and not advocate a certain position. By "free content" we mean that all work done here can be used elsewhere (which of course we can see from the various other sites on the net which copy our pages). The code of conduct attempts to establish an atmosphere where editors can edit without being harassed by other users and is essential to keeping this place active. I think it is perhaps the most relevant to an administrator as they are expected to keep the atmosphere free of such tensions. The ignore all rules pillar is essentially with the purpose to tell new users that they are free to mess up and that they won't be penalized for it. It is fundamental, of course, because if we expected perfection this project would be a failure.--Jersey Devil 01:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Why is wheel warring a bad idea and what steps should be taken to avoid it?
A: Conflicts between administrators is bound to happen, it is natural to have disagreements on how certain incidents should be treated. It is another thing altogether however to let that disagreement jump into a dispute which involves administrators incorrectly using their admin powers to try and win a duel with another admin. Much like edit warring, it can leave a confusing block log on user's block log page which is completely unfair to the user (for instance, a user with an extensive block log due to a dispute between two administrators might be taken less seriously by other posters because of it despite the fact that such an incident would be completely out of his control). Furthermore, it creates a situation were some trouble users could try and game the system by pitting one admin against another, which is always a bad thing. The best way to avoid it is simply to not do it. If there is a dispute try and involve other admins to get outside opinions by posting the incident on WP:AN/I. But if an admin does wheel war constantly and doesn't stop at the request of other respectable admins then there is no other option but AbrCom. The incident that sticks out to me the most at the moment is the Tony Sidaway RfAb which resulted in de-adminship partially fueled by wheel warring.--Jersey Devil 03:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Who has the authority to ban users?
A: This of course depends on the situation. According to current policy if there is strong enough community consensus to ban a user who's "exhausted the communities patience" it can be done by the request of the community but I have found this rarely to be the case. Instead members are usually banned either by 1) the Arbitration Committee following an AbrCom case or 2) by an administrator enforcing a Probation created during a past AbrCom decision (or from what I have found to be more rare a Mentorship).--Jersey Devil 04:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question (or questions) from —— Eagle 101 (Need help?)

7. Spam has almost doubled in little over 2 months. This information was derived from watching Linkwatcher's (IRC bot, created by me) output as it sits in #wikipedia-spam, a channel on the freenode IRC network. The core policies and guidelines dealing with spam are WP:SPAM, WP:EL, and WP:RS. An open ended question, what is your view on how severe spam is, and why? What is the purpose of External Links? Should we be allowing every myspace, youtube, blogspot, ect links into Wikipedia, Or should our standards be a bit higher then that? Some useful stats that have been collected recently are Veinor's stats on which domains are being added daily, and Heligoland's stats on frequency of link insertion. All stats are derived from LinkWatcher (IRC bot) logs. More information about efforts can be found at this handy page.
A: Spam is a bad problem. What will typically happen is that an IP will add a spam link in the external links section of an article, the next contributing user won't notice and make a contribution (thereby making that contribution the one seen on someone's watchlist) and thus no one will notice until a user carefully looks over the external links and removes it. I don't think there is an easy answer to the question of how to bring it down, perhaps a bot could do it but then questions would arise over what would be considered spam. Ultimately I agree it is a serious problem as it brings down the quality of the encyclopedia as a whole by tarnishing the image of a serious project we are trying to create. With regards to "myspace, youtube, blogspot, etc..." being linked in articles, I am typically against it (though, in some cases youtube and myspace may be acceptable). In particular I am against blogs being linked because what usually happens is that someone writes or finds a personal blog about some politician they don't like and then link it up to the politicians article. It is essentially a violation of WP:NOT a soapbox not to mention that it is an unreliable source.--Jersey Devil 00:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from User:BigDT

8. Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion gives a set of criteria under which an administrator may "speedy delete" a page. Are there any circumstances under which you would speedy delete a page that are not specifically covered here? Why or why not? --BigDT 18:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: I think that WP:CSD covers alot of issues that come up and at the moment I could not conceive of many issues under which I would speedy delete a page outside of these guidelines. I believe that process is important and that we should try to uphold the policies that we do have as much as possible and try very little to go outside of them (unless there are some kind of unforeseen extreme circumstances not covered by policy and guidelines). I will say this however which is also related to your question regarding articles which seem to be between that gray line of speedy deletion and afd. For those the WP:PROD process was created and I believe that it has been for the most part unsuccessful because 1) they are rarely used in comparison to speedy deletes and afds, 2) they rely on individual user's interpreting what "uncontroversial deletion candidates" means, 3) most prod tags are removed by the author of the article anyway which leads to an eventual afd process thereby making the process of determining whether an article should be on Wikipedia needlessly longer and 4) I personally believe that community consensus should be standard for all articles which do not clearly fit the speedy deletion criteria.--Jersey Devil 01:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. For what cause(s) may a user be blocked? What are some examples of times when it is appropriate or inappropriate for an administrator to block a user? --BigDT 18:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: For vandalism, excessive reverts (or gaming the 3rr policy), inappropriate usernames, sockpuppet accounts, personal threats, legal threats and other forms of disruption. I'd say that it is inappropriate for an administrator to block a user to "win" in a content dispute on a page or for an administrator to block a user with whom he has had in the past strong personal disputes (unless the incident is very clear vandalism or some kind of disruption that is obviously for the purpose of harming the encyclopedia). In such cases it is better to go to AN/I and ask another third party administrator to handle the situation.--Jersey Devil 01:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite.

Discussion

Support

  1. I have complete confidence that Jersey Devil will be a fine admin.--MONGO 06:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support- can't see a reason to oppose. JorcogaYell! 07:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support improved all round since last time. The Rambling Man 08:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support I believe the term is sang as member ;) [2]. No qualms from me. James086Talk 09:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Terence Ong 09:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. dvdrw 10:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. Proto::► 12:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Weak Support - probably would vote neutral because nom was placed at the bottom of the page at first, but I can still trust this user, so therefore support. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 12:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong Support again, this is a good admin candidate. --rogerd 13:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Voto en favor -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 13:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support I like what I've seen from JD, and have no problems supporting. Thε Halo Θ 13:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support A fine and trustworthy editor. I have come across this user's contributions quite regularly, and they are always of a high quality. Chairman S. Talk Contribs 13:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Great contribs, tons of edits, a lot of which are Wiki edits, well-written answers...bust out a mop. Ganfon 13:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support - Trustworthy, serious editor; brings to the project expertise we need. Tom Harrison Talk 14:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support I see no problems. ← ANAS Talk? 14:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. Jersey Devil gives no indication that he'll explode the 'Pedia if we hand over the Big Red Admin Buttons, so let's hand them over. ♠PMC♠ 16:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support as I see nothing which indicates Jersey Devil would abuse the bit. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. Well-established user, good range of participation, sensible and mature answers to questions - I see no problem with giving the tools. Trebor 17:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. I ran into this user when the Peruvian presidential elections was going on and he kept an wake eye on the Ollanta Humala article, which was the target fr a lot of attacks at the moment. This user is taking the encyclopadia issue seriously and can be trusted. MoRsE 18:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support--Rudjek 19:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support per my quality interactions with Jersey Devil. Regarding Jersey's level of activity since November, my best guess is, knowing Jersey's penchant for politics, Jersey trailed off a bit because the U.S. midterm elections ended. I suspect Jersey's edit total will pick back up again as other elections approach and as Jersey finds new projects to work on. But it's just an edit count, anyway, which says nothing about the quality of Jersey's contributions. · j e r s y k o talk · 19:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. Pleasant interaction experience, and selfnom means respect (=extra points) to me. Bishonen | talk 19:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  23. Support as on last RfA. Excellent candidate. Xoloz 21:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support good candidate.-- danntm T C 21:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support per Trebor. Beit Or 22:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support per the nomination. S.D. ¿п? § 22:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support An excellent admin candidate. I see no major problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 04:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Jaranda wat's sup 05:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Rama's arrow 17:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support great candidate! Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 19:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. Ntohing super-awesome about this candidate, but no reason to think he'll abuse his powers either.--Wizardman 21:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. Very good editor. Probably will be an excellent administrator. --Carioca 01:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Excellent editor. Deserves tools. Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C 03:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. Michael 05:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. Although there have been NPOV arguements levied against you, the evidence they have given wasn't enough to convince me personally that you will be any problem with the tools that adminship will provide you, so I give you my support Galactor213 16:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. This candidate has some serious weaknesses (see the Oppose section), but I'm a fan of his administrative specialties (AfD, AIN and such) and I think he can be trusted with them. YechielMan 03:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Strong Support This is a great candidate and I think he would be a fine admin. Chico 03:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Experienced and wise editor who should have been made an administrator long ago. Certainly one of the most neutral editors one would find on wikipedia despite the extraordinary comments by Sandy below. I think Sandy, who is normally one of my favourite editors, is way out of line here. There are simply no POV issues surrounding Jersey's work on Latin American subjects and no serious evidence has been or will be provided. Any accusations of pro-Hugo Chavez edits by Jersey below (based on his removal of one un-sourced edit 18 months ago) should be taken with a large pinch of salt. Sandy simply has a point of view on Latin America so forthright it could make a Contra blush ;) Next we'll be haranguing MONGO for his clear Anti-American bias!--Zleitzen 04:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Goodness, Zleitzen, I hardly think that expecting Wiki's articles on Chávez-related topics to be NPOV, reflecting a minute amount of what the world now sees from daily reliable sources makes me some sort of radical; you're sounding like someone who has a pony in a race to choose Castro's successor. The good news is that shining the light on the trend has now led Jersey Devil to reverse one of his own POV edits to teleSUR; the bad news remains—he proudly displays that article on his userpage, and is one of the main contributors, and it's biased. Since he's proud of his contributions, I wonder if he considers it a representation of wiki NPOV? Considering his is a self-nom following a sharp decline in edits, I'm wondering if Jersey Devil would offer to add his name to Category:Administrators open to recall should he be approved? That would decrease my concern about the slant in his edit history. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I've always said that I am in favor of making the recall process mandatory for all administrators. So clearly I'd put myself in that category. Also, please try and maintain a civil tone when talking to other members. There is simply no reason to make comments like those above. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 00:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm glad to hear you'll be adding yourself to administrators open to recall should you be approved. Your comment above generates more concern, however; if you believe my reply to Zleitzen comparing me to a contra to be uncivil, your block button is going to be more active than I'm comfortable with. Al contrario, I didn't think his comments about me were appropriate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Serious editor who has shown a willingness to improve since last RfA. Pascal.Tesson 05:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support – PeaceNT 10:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. I have often seen this editor doing good work. -Will Beback · † · 12:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 15:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support - He looks to be a trusworthy admin.Bakaman 03:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. I'm not without concerns, but I think on the whole that he will do a good job. —Doug Bell talk 19:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Strong support fine with NPOV, does good work in holding unencyclopedic material to account. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support Fine candidate. --Tbeatty 00:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support All around a good candidate. I think he will do fine with the tools. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 00:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Excellent user; would use the tools well. --Captain Wikify Argh! 03:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support Nothing but positive interactions with Jersey Devil. Should be a good admin. --Aude (talk) 06:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Ja, there were some issues. But overall I think your body of work allows me to trust your judgment. The anti-Striver "crusade" should have been understaken more circumspectly, but I can't fault you for submitting for deletion many articles entitled "Shia opinion of [person]", many of which qualified as WP:POVFORKs. I don't see this translating it into abusing administrative tools. I support. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 12:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. Oppose votes do not seem to be based on substantive issues, or if they are these issues are not presented or explained adequately. I'll check back to see if more information presents itself. -- SCZenz 17:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support a fine editor.--Aldux 01:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support per answer to Q1. CfD is backlogged majorly ;) --Majorly (o rly?) 02:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 05:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support per all above. Experienced user, very high editcount, POV issues not especially significant as far as I can see. Also shouldn't be judged on their early history. Walton monarchist89 10:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. Bucketsofg 13:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. I changed my mind after further review. Is competent. I have faced it this user before, and he has been fairly reasonable. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Very low level of activity since November 2006 + lack of participation in the process + the user does not strike me as admin material. — Nearly Headless Nick 16:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Dude, not to make a mountain of a molehill (coz I know you to be a very good admin/contributor), but would you please not use "not admin material" as a way to describe your concern. I mean, what does it mean to say that when Jimbo et al. have always said "adminship is no big deal" - it doesn't tell JD what he needs to do to improve. Its insulting - I know Tony Sidaway said that about me and I was pissed at him a lot, apart from having no idea where he got off to making that conclusion. Rama's arrow 19:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support Liked the answers and trust him not to use tools inappropriately. --Dweller 19:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support n' stuff. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support NoSeptember 00:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  61. Support. WJBscribe 00:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support, plain and simple. Tomertalk 03:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support No reason to believe user will abuse the tools. IronDuke 03:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Since I have confidence that JD won't abuse the powers, I must Support. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 05:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support--D-Boy 05:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support I supported the previous RfA in view of my belief that one could reasonably conclude that the net effect on the project of Jersey's being a sysop should be positive, and I support here because that belief abides. I am troubled by two or three of the diffs adduced below—I'm not, for instance, certain that I construe BLP vis-à-vis the Chavez revert in the same fashion as JD; I don't, FWIW, find anything particularly objectionable in the Natalie Holloway edit inasmuch as such edit, even as serves no constructive encyclopedic purpose, has no disruptive tendency—but I don't think any to evidence some flaw the presence of which should render JD ill-suited for adminship. Joe 06:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support Excellent candidate, from personal experience working with him. --Gabbec 06:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. My reason is specific to me and don't want it to influence others. I have had a few interaction with this user. My reason for oppose is that when I nominated someone else for adminship and he accepted, instead of me or that person, Jeresy added the RfA and voted oppose for him. I just didn't feel good that somebody other than me or that editor would add it. Jeresy could have waited for one day more to vote oppose. Just not nice, but he did not break any policy. BUT I am not qualified to say much about Jeresy. --Aminz 06:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just so that others watching this RFA know, this is the RFA which the above user is referring to. And thank you Aminz for the civility in your oppose vote. --Jersey Devil 06:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I remember an RfA which was listed by an oppose voter before the candidate had even answered the questions completely. Was it this one ? Tintin 06:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think so. --Aminz 07:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    To my knowledge, there is no policy prescribing who should list the RFA, and, in any case, that was a very minor issue; the RFA in question was doomed from the start. The basis for this oppose vote strikes me as rather spurious. Beit Or 22:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please stay civil Beit Or. I don't remember I asked for some editoral review of the basis for my oppose vote. --Aminz 01:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong Oppose. POV is a problem in many of the articles dealing with Latin American topics; someone who doesn't closely follow Latin American politics might not know of certain politician's views, but anyone who follows Latin American politics as closely as Jersey Devil appears to should know that this content which he (inaccurately) deleted (without the courtesy of a {{cn}} tag) could have been verified with a one-second Google search (or at least should think to check before deleting). teleSUR - to which Jersey Devil contributes significantly - is unbalanced (also pro-Hugo Chávez) I'm also concerned about the self-nom following a previous failed RfA, and that Jersey Devil's Wiki participation has dropped way off in the last four months. His answer to optional question 4 above is not convincing; Jersey Devil does not convince me he is an advocate for NPOV, and neutrality is badly needed on many Latin American articles. I'm also curious about why he hasn't answered the other optional questions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Switching to Stong oppose per auburnpilot's diff. Wow. I, too, had a recent bite-ish incident with Jersey Devil, leading me to question his temperment, but decided it best not to be thin-skinned; viewed in light of auburnpilot's diff and the one given by Inshanee in the older RfA, perhaps it wasn't just me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose I agree with Nearly Headless Nick that participation has been considerably lacking in recent months. I also agree with SandyGeorgia to some extent in regards to NPOV issues. The issue that pushed me from neutral to oppose was this comment which is totally unacceptable. Granted it was well over a year ago, but it is still displayed on the talk page and I can't look passed this type of comment. If the candidate had been more active, I may have been pushed back into neutral. auburnpilot talk 19:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    CommentThat comment was made in September 2005 long before I understood anything about Wikipedia. Of course it was completely wrong but I can not change a single random edit I did well over a year ago when I had probably less than 100 contributions. Also with regards to removing Hugo Chavez in the 9/11 Truth Movement article, I will say that I was correct in doing so. I was not the only one to do so either [3] and WP:BLP states that "Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) material about living persons should be removed immediately from Wikipedia articles" so the thought of putting up a citation needed tag is completely without merit. I also remind you that the user who created this list also put down Lou Dobbs [4] and Howard Dean [5] as supposed members which I removed (and I doubt that in these cases I would have been expected to put up a citation needed tag). With regards to "bias" in the teleSUR article, just look at that actual article and my actual contributions to it. They involve adding external links, creating a short table for the Advisory Committee, creating the infobox and generally adding fact-based content to the article. The following are diffs of all my edits to that article, perhaps the only thing that could be labeled to seem like bias is when I put that "Mack later attacked a February 2006 agreement between the Qatar-based network al-Jazeera and Telesur" in particular for the use of "attacked" I should have used "criticized" instead and I changed the article just now to reflect that. But other than that I do not see any other justifiable criticisms of "bias" made by myself in that article. [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18].--Jersey Devil 22:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm surprised that someone familiar with Latin American politics considers the info you deleted on Chavez to be "controversial (negative, positive, or just highly questionable)" - it's straightforward info about a public figure well known to people involved in Latin American politics, and easy to verify. Also, considering none of the other names on the list were cited, an unbiased edit would remove them all for the same BLP concern - I don't see citations on any of the names that remained after your edit. I hope you don't consider "someone else did it, too" as good editing policy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm glad you reversed one of your POV edits[19]—that's progress. You display teleSUR on your userpage, and are one of its main contributors. Do you consider it a good example of Wiki NPOV? Do you agree that POV can be created by omission as well as by comission? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per SandyGeorgia. Following WP:BITE is important for admins. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 21:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong Oppose for his summer 2006 rampage on Islam related articles, afd everything he found that was created by me, in total over 40 articles with a very low success rate of deleting, many people voting procedural keep and characterizing his behavior as a "crusade" or "war path". I would never trust him with admin tools. Btw, several of the articles that was deleted due to him was in fact undeleted later on since they simply went undedected given the total caos, one of this undeletions gave me a barnstar. --Striver - talk 00:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Weak Oppose I do not know much about him personally, may the reason is that he is inactive recently. I am only opposing him because Striver above post rises concerns to me. I will vote support if the user actively contribute and try again later after sometimes. Furthermore, I might also change my stand if he can address Striver concerns. :) --- ALM 11:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose - There's just lots of little things I don't really find comforting about this user. A bit of history of jumping the gun on some AfD's (some of that was involving Striver, but some of it wasn't -- like Exploding animals). Didn't really like some of his comments in the Seabhcan decision, and I just don't have the whole "yeah, this person would be good" feeling. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 10:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strong oppose per Striver. Could not trust him with delete button. Grace Note 11:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose per above. 1ne 06:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strong oppose per AuburnPilot diff-Cindery 22:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Strong oppose Jersey Devil has engaged in a lot of aggressive edit warring and POV-pushing, and I have no confidence that he wouldn't use admin tools (or the threat of using admin tools) to ensure that his POV dominates an article. --Hyperbole 23:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Strong oppose per above. --Mardavich 01:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose per striver and auburnpilot. Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 15:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Strong oppose per Striver and Hyperbole. Assumes bad faith and quick to delete articles based on own POV. Khodavand 00:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral per NPOV concerns raised by SandyGeorgia, good candidate but cannot support at this time. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 07:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral for now. Most of the oppose votes look spurious, but the "crusade" accusations strike me as worth considering. Can someone provide additional details on this? If not, I shall likely switch to support. -- SCZenz 18:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral for now, based on some of the edits given above Johnbod 00:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral, the user has a good knowledge about the project but recent declination in the contributions does not seem favourable to me. Shyam (T/C) 21:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral - I do think that JerseyDevil is a strong candidate, and the oppose votes don't really sway me, but I am a bit concerned about the decline in recent activity. I know that life happens sometimes, but weeks and weeks without significant presence might suggest that this nomination is not well-timed.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 06:33, 1 February 2007 (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/Jersey_Devil_2&oldid=1088715911"