Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jersyko

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

Jersyko

Final (90/1/1); Ended 21:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Jersyko (talk · contribs) – Jersyko is an experienced and productive user. He has amassed 8,400 edits over 2 years on this project (happy anniversary!) and has contributed substantially to the mainspace. He has a considerable amount of user interaction and process experience, evidenced by quality WP:space contributions. To the best of my understanding, this user is uncontroversial, has not been blocked or really yelled at ever, it seems. Finally, as per his userpage, he is well-educated. It is my pleasure to nominate Jersyko for adminship. - crz crztalk 19:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I will gladly stand for adminship. Thank you, Crz. · j e r s y k o talk · 20:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

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 voters:

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 expect to work on speedy deletions, copyright problems, and general vandal fighting. WP:AIAV is a great tool for non-admins, but having to post there after requisite warnings are given instead of merely taking action myself has prevented me from doing as much RC patrolling as I did not long after I started editing here. Obviously, and this can't be emphasized enough, blocking for vandalism should only occur after continued vandalism post-warnings or when it's absolutely clear that an account is being used solely to vandalize.

Additionally, I expect to help out at WP:PAIN. I noticed a message at WP:AN a couple months ago by one of the dedicated users that fights through the slog that is WP:PAIN on a daily basis. Whether out of compassion for the dedicated few that participate or merely out of masochism, I hope to help out there, as well.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A: I am proud of my contributions that are listed on my user page, though perhaps they don't tell the whole story. Of particular note are my articles on (my) newly elected Congressman Steve Cohen, a few court case articles, such as Stambovsky v. Ackley (a wonderfully quirky contract law case), and Copyright Act of 1976. I probably enjoyed compiling Tennessee United States Senate election, 2006 more than any other article I've written, most likely because of my unhealthy interest in politics, though I wasn't the only contributor, obviously.

I have made significant contributions to two featured articles: tooth development and tooth enamel. Both of them were written in substantial part by Dozenist, preeminent dentistry Wikipedian. My contributions were limited to substantial rewriting and copyediting, as I know no more about dentistry than what Dozenist sees fit to tell me. I'm currently working on creating a (hopefully) featured list with Zantastik in my sandbox.

Finally, I'm proud of my POV fighting. I started working to enforce NPOV early in my editing career (career? doesn't that imply that we're being paid?), first participating in a discussion of edits that were too pro-paternal rights at Talk:Abortion, if memory serves, and I've participated in many more discussions of POV since. More recently, I've been working to keep Barack Obama, George Allen, Democratic Party, and Sons of Confederate Veterans free of POV.

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: As a law student initially and now an attorney, Wikipedia editing conflicts have not caused me undue amounts of stress, as I have learned to deal with conflicts and the stress they cause as part of my education and career. Nonetheless, of course I have been frustrated dealing with POV pushers and vandals at times, as we all have. I've been the target of two legal threats, the first involved a threat by a single-purpose account to go to the Tennessee Bar Association over at Talk:Memphis, Tennessee, and the second involved a user telling me to contact the Sons of Confederate Veterans' attorney because I placed an NPOV tag on that article. Frankly, the only real life stress I've ever experienced as a result of editing Wikipedia was because of that first threat; mainly since I thought the user might report trumped up charges to the Bar. I dealt with it by removing all personal information from my user page and having Vary delete my user page history. I haven't worried about it since.

I think Talk:Sons of Confederate Veterans demonstrates my current approach to dealing with editing conflicts (starting with this subsection and continuing down). Extensive talk page discussion is always my preferred method of operation, and I like to utilize RFC when I can. Sadly, in that case, the discussion began with a legal threat, continued in a promising fashion for a couple weeks, devolved into threats of arbitration, then essentially ended, for all intents and purposes, when I filed this user conduct Rfc for incessant POV pushing and incivility.

I cannot think of a significant editing conflict I have had with any established user or sysop. I have never been a party in an arbcom case.

4. As Wikipedia grows, and its search engine ranking increases, this is causing some people to use Wikipedia for search engine optimization, and to generally promote their website. Spam has almost doubled in little over 2 months. This information was derived from watching Linkwatcher's (IRC bot) 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? If so, how high?

A: I've experienced the spam onslaught as Wikipedia has grown, and I've found myself invoking WP:SPAM and WP:EL more than ever. I suspect that as more and more people and corporations discover Wikipedia as time goes on, the problem will persist and perhaps even worsen. Thus, to answer your first question, I believe that spam is a serious problem, but that it could potentially get worse. Fortunately, however, WP:SPAM, WP:EL, and WP:RS, as well as WP:COI and WP:NOT#SOAP (which I would add to your list), in addition to our blacklist, all function to make spam fighting a bit easier. Wikiproject Spam is doing excellent work in this regard.

External links are meant to provide a useful, relevant additional resource for the reader. The crucial point is that the links should be useful (or, as our EL policy puts it, "proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, factual, informative)"). Thus, on very rare occasions, links to websites that are commercial to some degree could perhaps pass muster (an example could be a doctor's website which not only serves as an advertising vehicle for the doctor's services, but also as a repository of the doctor's in-depth knowledge on a particular subject). However, websites that are primarily commercial in nature are, by definition, more commercial than they are useful. Thus, if, after examining a link, one determines that it is more commercial than useful, it should be removed.

Of course we should not allow every youtube, myspace, or blog link onto Wikipedia. A youtube video of a frat party fart-a-thon would not be a useful, appropriate, or very relevant link in the fart article. Blogs tend to often fall short in terms of WP:RS, and are explicitly mentioned as links to generally be avoided in WP:EL. Myspace tends to hardly ever be useful for anything other than making yourself dumber for a few minutes of browsing. There are rare exceptions, however, which would give me pause before considering blocking all of these websites. For example, a youtube-hosted video of Saddam Hussein's execution would most likely be an acceptable link in an article about that execution. Similar rare exceptions exist for blogs (such as those written by well-respected and notable journalists), and even myspace (confirmed celebrity myspace pages, Jenna Fischer, for example). I don't mean to dwell on the exceptions, however, and again would point out the necessity of making sure that most of these types of links are removed.

Regarding raising standards, I admit that I am undecided on this point for now. Time might force us to raise them. I am willing to listen to arguments on point, and would gladly participate in any discussions on this and related issues. · j e r s y k o talk · 23:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Optional question by S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 22:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

5. Do you believe it is proper to ask a candidate for RFA their age? Would the age of an RFA candidate affect your decision to vote for them? Should age be at all taken into account when voting for a prospective admin or should the user be judged solely on the quality of their contributions to Wikipedia?

A: Of the RFAs I've voted in, I think I knew the candidate's general age only once. Lord Emsworth was writing dozens of featured articles in his mid teens. Judgment, critical thinking skills, and a demonstrated ability to contribute to Wikipedia in a tangible way are necessary for adminship. Each of those, perhaps, requires a certain level of maturity. However, if the candidate has demonstrated these qualities, I could care less what his or her age is, as he or she clearly has what it takes. · j e r s y k o talk · 23:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Optional question by 121.6.103.249

6. Do you think wikipedia is a encyclopedia or a big community?

A: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Because it is a freely edited encyclopedia, a community of editors has formed to facilitate the goal of writing an encyclopedia. The "community" is invaluable, because it allows editors to communicate, resolve disputes, and actually enjoy writing an encyclopedia (now that's revolutionary). So, to answer your question as directly as possibly, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that just so happens to have a community because it is freely edited. Thanks for the question. · j e r s y k o talk · 04:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Optional question by David Fuchs

7. What do you think is the role and effect of WP:IAR?

A: I do not believe I have ever invoked IAR in regard to any of my actions as an experienced Wikipedian, and I'm hard pressed to think of a situation in which I might do so. Frankly, my mindset is such that I have no desire to ignore the rules now that I know them, mainly because I believe they almost invariably lead to creating a better encyclopedia and where they don't, they can be changed through discussion.

But that, I think, leads to the main purpose of IAR. IAR's primary purpose is to serve as a reminder that Wikipedia does not exist to be a rulemaking or bureaucratic institution, but rather to be an encyclopedia that is a repository of human knowledge. In addition, it can also serve as an encouragement for complete newbies, though the goal should be, of course, to teach new editors the major rules over time.

Perhaps relating my own experience would be helpful for that last point. I began editing here about two years ago and began substantial editing about 1 year and 10 months ago. As a new user, I recall having a distinct feeling of being not only eager to contribute to what I considered (and still do) a valuable project, but also being overwhelmed by things that seemed somewhat alien, such as Wikimarkup and certainly guidelines and policy. At the time, I found "be bold" an encouragement to continue editing and writing despite my tentativeness and general wiki-ignorance. I didn't discover WP:IAR until much later, but I believe it would have been a similar, if not greater, encouragement.

But to go back to my main point to close, I truly believe that IAR exists not as excuse for bad behavior, but as a reminder of what we should aspire to be. Thanks for the question. · j e r s y k o talk · 02:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

General comments

• See Jersyko's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• I will not be spamming talk pages with thanks. Rather, I will post a link to a "thanks" page at the top of my user page. I hope all commenters will wander by once this rfa is finished. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Discussion

Support

1. Beat the Nom-Support haha, crz! --teh tennisman 20:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

   Deep analysis performed? - crz crztalk 20:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

   Per my own standards, yes. --teh tennisman 20:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

2. Nom support - crz crztalk 20:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Support--La gloria è a dio 20:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Support Jersyko handles difficult situations well. He is diligent and always civil. I am sure he will be a great admin. -Will Beback · † · 21:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Support-Plan to work on things that get backlogged and other admin things. --TeckWiz^TalkContribs_@ 21:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
6. Support I see no problems with this nomination. (aeropagitica) 21:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
7. Whoa, Jersy wasn't already an admin? Support. —bbatsell ¿? 22:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
8. Support-I just read that he's been on for 2 years and made 8,400 contributions. That's when I thought, "Definately. He should me admin." Good luck. -Spaceboy P.S. Could you imagine the guy above me posted at the same time I did? I was shocked to see something like that. lol.
9. Support. Should make a fine admin if he follows the requirement of at least 16 hours of Wikiediting/Admin chores per day. Nishkid64 22:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
10. Support. I have relied on Jersyko tremendously to review my own edits. He makes a great editor and asks pointed questions to improve the quality of dental articles, even though he has no experience in the dental field at all. I am certain he would make an excellent admin. - Dozenist talk 22:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
11. Support looks like another stellar candidate. Odd that he wasn't made an administrator earlier -- Samir धर्म 22:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
12. Support More than qualified. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 22:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
13. Support. -- DS1953 ^talk 23:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
14. Michael Snow 23:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
15. Fellow-jurist-support, of course. Sandstein 23:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
16. Support. SD31415 (SIGN HERE) 23:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
17. Support Good answers to the questions. Great candidate overall. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 00:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
18. JoshuaZ 01:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
19. Support very good candidate who seems quite qualified for the position.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 01:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
20. Support, no problems I see. Good luck getting accused of being a cabalist approximately 100 times a day because you dared to block an arrogant POV pusher. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
21. Support looks like a good candidate. Yaf 02:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
22. Support Looks like a fantastic candidate. has tons of experience and clearly is capable of using tools.Ganfon 03:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
23. Support looks good.-- danntm ^T _C 03:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
24. Support. G.He 04:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
25. Support. Everything looks good, have no problem with him. --Wizardman 04:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
26. Support We need more AVFs like him. Alex43223 ^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 04:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
27. Support per nom. Yuser31415 05:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
28. You honor, we find the candidate to be a great one! JorcogaYell! 05:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
29. Support - Good contribution, should have no problems. Insanephantom (please comment on my Editor Review!) 08:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
30. Support, definitely worthy. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
31. Support My interactions with Jersyko have all been quite positive. Gzkn 08:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
32. Not quite an RFA cliche, but I've had good experiences with Jersyko. >Radiant< 09:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
33. Support, good user. Terence Ong 09:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
34. Strong Support I like his answers and I think he's a really great candidate. ← ANAS ^Talk? 10:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
35. Support Nominated by crz? of course it's a support. But seriously, Jersyko sounds like a good candidate. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 12:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
36. Strong Support My only regret is not having nominated the user first. All I've seen is good work from this user, in particular with regards to keeping the Democratic Party (United States) article free from vandalism and unencyclopedic language.--Jersey Devil 14:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
37. Support per nom. Good wikipedian. TonyTheTiger 15:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
38. Support, despite the fact that he is a fellow attorney (we are such a self-hating profession). Seriously though, seems like a great editor with plenty of experience in dispute-resolution and NPOV matters. Coemgenus 15:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
39. Support per nom. Acs4b 16:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
40. Support, rather useful chap to have around. Postdlf 16:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

    Strong Support Wiki is Freaakky. 16:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

    Banned user Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 05:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

41. From his user page I have inferred that this is a very experienced user who would contribute much to the Wikipedia as an administrator. He has answered many difficult questions about his activities on and about the Wikipedia itself well. As I believe that the Wikipedia will benefit from him being an administrator, I declare my Support. Freedom to share 16:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

    Support, you seem to be ready. Daisuke-Matsuzaka 18:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

42. Support Has plenty of experience. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 18:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
43. Support This user's knowledge of policy, his dedication to the project and sound judgement make him eminently qualified for adminship. Furthermore, he would be more productive if he had access to admin tools (vandal and spam fighting, etc). It is a pleasure to support him. --Zantastik talk 19:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
44. Support a fellow Tennessean/Built to Spill fan. Great answers to the questions above all else. Teke ^(talk) 20:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
45. Support per ... pretty much everything above. Strongly qualified candidate, no concerns. Newyorkbrad 20:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
46. Support Very well written replies. As adminship is no big deal, and I can't find any reason to not trust you with the tools... so I think you will make a fine admin. —— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)} 21:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
47. Support. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 22:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
48. Support. User has, as Crz noted, plenty of WP:namespace and user talk edits, and seems very reasonable in wanting the tools. His slate is clean as a whistle, too. A valuable admin, methinks. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 22:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
49. Support No evidence this nominee will abuse admin tools.--MONGO 22:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
50. Support He's not an admin already? Argyriou (talk) 01:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
51. Support Good editor! Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 02:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
52. Support. Excellent candidate. --Irpen 03:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
53. Support— easy decision. Even nominated by Czr! Do good things well. Williamborg (Bill) 03:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
54. Support. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 04:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
55. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 05:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
56. SupportAn excellent user.--Meno25 09:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
57. Support. Fine user. - Darwinek 13:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

    Support Terence Ong 15:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

    • Thanks for the double support, Terence, but you probably shouldn't vote twice ;) · j e r s y k o talk · 16:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

58. S u p p o r t - N o S e p t e m b e r 15:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
59. Strong support. --SonicChao ^talk 16:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
60. Support Have interacted with this user and found him reasonable and level-headed. IronDuke 16:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
61. Support Should do well with the mop and bucket. Tennis DyNamiTe ^{(sign here)} 17:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
62. Support--Húsönd 21:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
63. Support —dima/s-ko/ 21:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
64. Support - good head on his shoulders and an even temper. He'll do well. --Iriseyes 21:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

    Strong Support -- Knowledgable on Politics/and Law. Can help mediate discussions relating to those both. Bearly541 21:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

65. Support: I'm delighted to hear someone who can assess what "IAR" is and what it says. Geogre 22:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
66. Support. Metros235 00:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
67. Support! --Kukini 02:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
68. Support. Zaxem 02:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
69. Support - good image experience[1] and 22 months here --T-rex 03:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
70. Support--HIZKIAH (User &#149; Talk) 09:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
71. Support per good understanding of WP:AGF.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 12:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
72. Support. Seasoned editor with a good grasp of policy and plenty of experience in the main namespace. You will be a fine admin. — mark ✎ 16:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
73. Support. I have yet to see an oppose or neutral vote yet... Sr13 (T|C) ^{Editor review} 05:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
74. Support I have always been impressed by Jersyko's work when I encounter it. He will make a great admin.--RWR8189 11:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
75. Support - Nothing to worry about. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 11:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
76. Support per nom. --A. B. ^(talk) 15:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
77. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 17:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
78. Support youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 20:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
79. Support Excellent candidate per nom. --lovelaughterlife♥^talk? 21:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
80. Support a good candidate --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 23:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
81. Strong Support candidate has exceptional judgment and in my experience he is always patient and level-headed no matter how difficult the circumstances. And I think the answer to question seven is the best summary of IAR I've ever heard. -- Vary | Talk 01:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
82. Support Bwithh 04:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
83. Support Looks very impressive.--Osidge 13:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
84. Support Joe I 23:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
85. Support, has been very diplomatic in helping with POV on articles relating to American politics. Andrew Levine 02:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
86. Support Without hesitation. Will be a great Admin •CHILLDOUBT• 21:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
87. Strong support excellent record, knows way around, contributes to articles a lot, strong judgement. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
88. Support --Ixfd64 03:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
89. Strong support My general disinclination to give pile-on supports notwithstanding, I must so support here, if only in order that this should continue its push toward WP:100. I concur, FWIW, in the sentiments of Crz and Vary, and I cannot believe that the project should ever be worse for our sysopping an editor schooled in law and possessed of the deliberative and analytical disposition one expects to find in individuals (the occasional vacuous Sandy Days aside) thus educated. Finally, any user who uses as many words to answer question seven as might I surely merits support. Joe 06:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
90. Support I'm looking around for a reason not to... it is a positive attribute to seem human! Then again, there is the comment regarding having more involvement in RfC. Bingo found the flaw for my support! lol Mathmo ^Talk 19:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

    Hah! Here's another: I'm absolutely horrible when it comes to anything related to business or economics. I also only enjoy sweet, unsophisticated wine, though I'm working on that. · j e r s y k o talk · 19:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strongly Oppose I thought this editor was very mature and could handle various tasks regarding projects. However, judging from this ignorant edit. . . probably not. Bearly541 15:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

   Comment ummm...that is from May 2005 and the diff provided is an IP.--Jersey Devil 15:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

   Strongly Oppose. Jersyko thinks one can be a vandle on ones own page. Pirate Foundation 19:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

   This appears to be a vandalism / trolling only account. · j e r s y k o talk · 19:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

   The account has been indef blocked for vandalism and trolling. -- Merope 19:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral Possibility of confusion with another admin. Of course, if this one is as good as so many voters think, the confusion can only enhance my own tarnished reputation.
   --Jerzy•t 21:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
   

   Neutral leaning towards support. My grip on another RfA about lack of "Experience", take a look at Jersyko's history and you will get an idea of my definition of admin experience. He doesn't have the most edits nor has he been around the longest but he has nice track record (not afraid to deep into some of harder stuff though) that is across the board. I would "ideally" like more experience in dispute resolutions (in particular the oft ignore RfC's) but out of everyone currently in the list--Jersyko is the best situated for the mop. 205.157.110.11 10:42, 11 January 2007 (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.