Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jreferee 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.

Jreferee[edit]

Closed as successful by Cecropia 06:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC) at (95/1/1); Scheduled end time 23:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jreferee (talk · contribs) - It is my pleasure to nominate Jreferee to become an administrator here. He is an excellent article writer, and his close to 2,000 mainspace edits consolidate that fact (note - these are just about all content additions, not your run of the mill vandalism reverts). This shows his excellent understanding of our inclusion criteria. Jreferee was a very important player in Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Assessment/Assessment Drive, helping to assess a lot of biographical articles, again, showing he understands what is important for an article - an administrator should know this, we are often expected to mediate content disputes, and without article knowledge, we would simply act as a hindrance rather than a help. He's a strong contributor to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, showing he is able to act against important BLP violations - at present however, he is limited by not having admin tools to protect pages and block violators. What I like about Jreferee are his active contributions to the help desk, helping new users to navigate their way around which shows a tendancy of Jreferee to always help people wherever he can, again, an important trait of an administrator that must respect our newer users at all times. I feel I have to mention in this nomination Jreferee's previous RfA which was unsuccessful in March, If anyone wasn't aware, Runcorn used sockpuppets in this discussion, which put the count out of the bureaucrats' discretion - if they had not commented, who knows, Jreferee may have been an admin, already. It's important not to dwell on that issue, and when commenting on this RfA, you should look at whether Jreferee is right for adminship now, not was he before. I hope you can help me give this fine user the tools. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination: (Mostly word-for-word copy of my nom from the first RfA) Jreferee is one of the most spectacular editors I have encountered in my time with the project. Since joining Wikipedia in October 2006, Jreferee has made great improvements to many parts of the encyclopedia, such as WP:DYK, WP:BLPN, WP Biography Assessment Drive, article mediation and a number of articles, and has participated in many activities that admin tools would be useful for (AIV, XfD, DRV, among others). From the moment I met Jreferee in January 2007, I knew he would be a great Wikipedian, who would even be greater as an administrator. I've waited a few months to nominate Jreferee only because other users oppose admin candidates who they feel are inexperienced. I feel Jreferee has demonstrated his experience and knowledge on Wikipedia (both articles and on policy) since the time he got here. Jreferee has demonstrated a great deal of responsibility and leadership in many of the activities he participates in, such as article writing and discussion, writing a simplified DYK policy to elucidate the mysteries and intricacies behind "Did you know...", leading the effort at WPBiography Assessment Drive to launch a drive to assess as many of the 130,000+ biographical articles still in the assessment backlog (by the way, feel free to help out this great cause). Jreferee has demonstrated a thorough knowledge for policy (and some policy writing), a good deal of XfD participation and WikiProject participation and even a bigger amount of article writing. Also, as Ryan mentioned, Jreferee could definitely use the tools to block BLP violators and protect pages in cases of BLP issues. P.S. If you want to know more about Jreferee, check out his userpage (what a coincidence? I could have sworn that was my userpage.) where he has detailed many of the things he has done on Wikipedia. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you. I accept. -- Jreferee (Talk) 23:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: The new tools will help me address all the concerns at the BLPN board and ANI board. Right now, I can only address some of the concerns since I am unable to protect an article or block a user as the situation may dictate. I have addressed vandalism whenever I've run across it in articles and plan to use the tools to address matters at AIV and RFPP. With the tools, I plan to start closing XfDs and DRVs, clearing backlogs, provide sysop chores to DYK.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I think my one of my best contributions is the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article that I wrote for WikiProject Biography ten days after my first Wikipedia edits. It still is there and I often provide a link to it on Biography talk pages when assessing Biography articles. I also am pleased with my success towards holding myself to a particular sourcing standard for articles. I do like to develop new Biography articles and post them as B class articles using in-line references after most sentences in the article. The articles in which I'm most happiest include Bradley Willman, Douglas A. Warner III, Disco D, and David Jack Holt. I also have provided significant content expansion and the organization structure to the Wikipedia:Did you know project page, the WikiProject Biography Spring 2007 Assessment Drive project page, and this project's page.
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 do not believe I have had any conflicts over editing since my first RfA that stand out. However, two stood out prior to my first RfA and were brought up in that RfA. In the first instance, I had a dispute with Rebecca in November 2006, which was a little over a month after my first edit on Wikipedia. This subsequently included CJ when she tried to mediate the matter. Basically, I responded poorly to Rebecca's edit summary in reverting my post in an article she created. In the second instance, Tractorkingsfan rightlyfully was upset when I implied in a March 2007 ANI post that he and another editor may be the same person without really justifying such a statement. The incident I was reporting was not directly related to Tractorkingsfan and, on reflection, I should have merely report the incident in the ANI board rather than advocate for outcome. My March 2007 RfA#1 provides more details on both these matters, but I believe that they have accepted my apologies and that we all put the matter behind us. From my November 2006 conflict, I've learned be more tolerant of newcomers to Wikipedia since their perspectives of how things should be handled inside Wikipedia largely will be from outside of Wikipedia. Since that time, if I do not understand the reasons why one of my edits were reverted, I usually try to discuss the matter with the person making the reversion to try to come to an agreement on the best course of action.
4. (Optional) How do you feel about Category:Administrators open to recall? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 00:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A:I see that you and a lot of other fine admins are listed in that category. I too would be willing to stand for re-confirmation of adminship if a sufficient number of editors in good standing request it. -- Jreferee (Talk) 02:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional Questions from TREYWiki

5. Tell me what you think a meatpuppet is and why is it harmful for them to be on wikipedia?
A: Meatpuppets are a group of individuals who each create a brand new account specifically for the single purpose of participating in, or influencing, a particular vote or area of discussion. The harm comes when their one agenda works against a balanced growth in articles and in the encyclopedia as a whole, such as by swaying a deletion debate or moving an article away from a neutral point of view. -- Jreferee (Talk) 15:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. How would you deal with a sockpuppet? Please list all steps.
A: For sockpuppets making illegitimate use of their accounts and where the sockpuppets are confirmed by WP:RFCU and/or WP:SSP or one where it is completely clear that multiple accounts are sockpuppets, the action I take may depend on the level of their illegitimate use. I may try to contact the user, first by email if enabled, to see whether they wanted to continue their illegitimate use Wikipedia or whether they wanted to edit Wikipedia. I may provide warnings on their talk page and I may block the accounts, the length of which may depend on the level of their illegitimate use. In addition to addressing the sockpuppet accounts, I may work to reduce the effects of their activities, such as noting in an on-going XfD their participation in that XfD. For those accounts not indefinitely blocked, I also may watch those accounts closely during the first weeks in which they continue editing. -- Jreferee (Talk) 16:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question by AldeBaer

7. Since we all started out as readers of this encyclopedia, I'd like to know what your three (or more) favourite reads on Wikipedia are (may be articles, or even policy pages, whatever you like), ideally with a short explanation as to what especially you like about them.
A: Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset is a good read as I think it captures what Wikipedia strives to be - a place for kindness, respect, absence of a strict set of rules, and graciousness. I really wish I had know about this page when I first came to Wikipedia as I think it would have accellerated my understanding of what Wikipedia is about. As for my personal article reading interests, I do appreciate reading well written articles on widely known topics as much as the next person. However, my article reading interests reside more in reading about obscure and unusual things, which fits in with my understanding of Wikipedia being "free access to the sum of all human knowledge." For example, every time I read The K Foundation burn a million quid, it leaves me smiling and shaking my head as it probably does other readers. Not every Wikipedia reader would be interested in this topic, but for those who are, there it is. I also like George Washington (inventor) (), because it demonstrates to readers that Wikipedia is willing to work hard on any topic for the sake of human knowledge, not just those topics well known throughout the world. -- Jreferee (Talk) 18:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Question by Evilclown93)

8 This should be an easy question. How many policies are there on WP, and in what categories are they split into? --Evilclown93(talk) 11:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: Per Policies and guidelines, there are 42 official policies. According to List of policies, every current policy falls into one of the five categories: Behavioral, Content and Style, Deletion, Enforcement, and Legal and copyright -- Jreferee (Talk) 18:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question by Walton

9. Since BLP is one of your areas of interest, please look at this recent AfD and state how you would have closed it, if you had been the closing admin. Waltontalk 17:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: Coredesat closed that AfD and has been an admin for eight month. I have never closed an AfD, so it would be very unlikely that I would attempt to close such an AfD without more AfD closing experience. However, if I were the closing admin, I would closed it by determining the rough consensus. Since the page is deleted, I do not believe I could do this now since verification by the closing admin of some of the opinions/reasons at that AfD rely on the article being visible. But in addition to determining rough consensus, I would otherwise follow the steps at Deletion process:Articles for Deletion page. -- Jreferee (Talk) 19:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I was looking for a clear statement of principle here. The number of Keep and Delete !voters was roughly equal, and all put forward a clear rationale; the closing admin decided, however, to disregard the Keep arguments and close it according to his/her own opinion. However, I appreciate I was a little unfair to you in asking for a stance on one of our most contentious issues, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Waltontalk 19:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from —M (talk • contribs) 19:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

10. Do you believe the Wikipedia community has a set of shared ethical values?
A: On my user page is Jimbo's March 2007 statement that Wikipedia is built on us trusting each other and on human understanding and forgiveness of errors. I believe that this is what binds the Wikipedia community together as we interact with one another. To some extent, these set of shared ethical values are set out in Wikipedia:Simplified_Ruleset. -- Jreferee (Talk) 00:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. Do you believe that ethical values should be taken into consideration when crafting policy?
A: For the most part, policy is the codification of current convention and common practice which already have wide consensus. The convention, common practice, and consensus, in turn, generally are derived from the actions of numerous individuals - the Wikipedia community. Since my understanding of the Wikipedia community is that it has a set of shared ethical values, it seems likely that the Wikipedia community applies these shared ethical values when searching for the right thing to do. Because the Wikipedia community applies these shared ethical values when searching for the right thing to do, I think that ethical values are taken into consideration when crafting policy and rightfully so. -- Jreferee (Talk) 00:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. Do you believe it is appropriate for an administrator to impose their own ethical values when making administrative actions (e.g. deletion, blocking, page protection, etc.)?
A: Administrators should not act like police or judges and should strive never to use administrative powers based on their own judgment. Administrative actions should be supported by some Wikipedia policy, guideline, etc. I do not plan on placing my own ethical values above Wikipedia process by impose them when making administrative actions. If other administrators impose their own ethical values when making administrative actions, I will strive to judge the appropriateness of their actions based on Wikipedia policy, guideline, etc. rather than using that administrator's own ethical values as a basis for appropriateness. As I see it, my belief as to whether it is appropriate for an administrator to impose their own ethical values when making administrative actions is secondary to whether such action is appropriate based on the will of the community. -- Jreferee (Talk) 00:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional Question from Kwsn

13. If you had to clean out one backlog from here and one from here, what would you do and why? Kwsn(Ni!) 16:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: From Category:Wikipedia backlog, I would work to reduce the Category:Possible copyright violations backlog since there is a need, I have worked on various copyright issues on and off Wikipedia, and the advice for admins seems like a good source for new admins to get advice from admins experienced in this type of work. From Category:Administrative backlog, I would work to reduce the Category:Candidates for speedy deletion backlog since there is a need and I am familiar with what should not be speedy deleted due to my work at XfD. -- Jreferee (Talk) 17:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optional Question from Wooyi

14. In what circumstances would you invoke WP:IAR to speedily delete pages that are either not in or in the gray area of criteria of speedy deletion? WooyiTalk to me? 16:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A: I think that the criteria for speedy deletion is clear enough for me to justify my speedy delete admin actions without having to invoke WP:IAR. If I perceived something as being in the gray area of criteria for speedy, I would post at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion to request opinions on the matter before taking action. If I perceived something as being outside of the criteria for speedy deletion, I would leave the matter to the Wikipedia community such as by seeking discussion using another method under the deletion policy. -- Jreferee (Talk) 17:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

RfAs for this user:

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Jreferee before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

  • I interacted with Jreferee for a while in March, and have not interacted with him as much since then, but have seen him around Wikipedia. I first left him an automated message regarding an image he uploaded that I felt was inappropriately tagged.(1) He was not sure why I had left him the message but, instead of simply reverting my edit to the image page or adding inadequate information, he asked on his talk page and at Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions.(2) Later that month, we got in a discussion where we had strongly differing opinions, but we were able to have a generally civil argument.(3) Further, due to this argument, Jreferee started a now-archived discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_process, which helped to clarify the things we were discussing.(4)
  • That said, I believe Jreferee when he says, "If I perceived something as being in the gray area of criteria for speedy, I would post at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion to request opinions on the matter before taking action", because he has, in my previous interaction with him, definitely been willing to start discussion where there is question. An editor who is able and willing to engage in civil discussion and is sensible would be, in my opinion, an excellent administrator. I have no objections to a bureaucrat sysopping Jreferee, and I look forward to seeing him with the sysop bit. --Iamunknown 19:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support as co-nominator. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong support as nominator. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong support I supported last time, I'm strongly supporting now. Jreferee is an excellent user. Acalamari 23:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support per noms, candidate's overall record, and the fact that he should have passed last time. Newyorkbrad 23:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong Support valuable user, understands what the tools are for. — OcatecirT 23:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support I supported on the previous RfA and I think that this user as only gotten better since then. Captain panda 23:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong Support, should've been an admin last time. (Then again I was a nom last time, so maybe that's biased.)--Wizardman 23:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Edit-conflict support (that must be a good sign, right?): Valuable contributions at WP:BLP/N, AfD's, and elsewhere, and I think the tools would be useful for what he does. MastCell Talk 23:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Will make a fantastic admin. Majorly (talk) 00:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support --A. B. (talk) 00:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Another edit-conflicted support -- cant find a reason to oppose. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk
  12. (: —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JetLover (talk • contribs).
  13. Suport To start off - I had always thought you were an admin (suprised to see that you're not - yet). In reviewing your contributions, edits and talkspace I can see I feel absolutely confident in your being able to handle adminship. --Ozgod 00:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. My god. He maintains the highly contentious WP:BLP/N page almost singlehandedly, and it was a real effort to scroll to the bottom of User:Jreferee/Awards. Three months might not be a long time for some people, but for this user, it was thousands of edits ago. If he falls back to being mean and nasty, I'll be in the ranks clamoring for him to give back the shiny buttons, but until that unlikely occurrence, give the ref a mop. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 00:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I hate to haggle, but half of his awards were given to him by his current and past RFA co-nominators. Italiavivi 00:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Quibble, methinks you mean. He has 5 Barnstars, which is nice, but not unusually many, and not really objective, I've even seen abusive editors give them to each other. However, he has 22 (twenty-two) DYK articles, that's impressive. And I clicked on a few of them, and while they're not GA material, they're really nice. Look at Harry Aubrey Toulmin, Sr. for example. I'm one of those that believes that besides doing support work, such as at BLPN, admins should know a few things about writing articles, and he clearly doees. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 00:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    My English may not be perfect but it is pretty good, and I meant "haggle" [1] ("to wrangle, dispute, or cavil"), thank you though. I do not appreciate you taking taking time from the discussion at hand to criticize my English, either. Italiavivi 01:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Mea culpa, peccavi, sit venia verbo. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 01:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support definitely. –Sebi ~ 01:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Picaroon (Talk) 01:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support a good candidate with excellent knowledge of WP:BLP --Steve (Stephen) talk 01:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Quality user with potential Gutworth (talk) 02:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support I've always found him reliable and level-headed. CIreland 02:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. Seems ready. Majoreditor 03:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support - An excellent user with great adminship potential. --tennisman 03:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support He is well qualified to be an admin and I doubt he would abuse his tools. There is a lack of major reasons to oppose him.--†Sir James Paul† 03:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support just like last time, except by now I've seen him in action, and am in complete agreement with the noms. Riana (talk) 04:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support as per noms. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support trustworthy and qualified. —Anas talk? 06:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support I see no reason(s) not to! Jmlk17 07:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Would be a great admin. --Siva1979Talk to me 07:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support - Don't know the user personally, but have seen them around & see no reasons not to support them in adminship. Cheers, Spawn Man 07:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. I have seen this editors work and support the request for him to get some admin tools.Bec-Thorn-Berry 08:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support, the only incident that causes concern was months ago, and I believe that Jreferee has done an excellent job of learning from that error. I believe that he will make an excellent admin. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Don't see much wrong concerning this request... Don't see much of a downside in him as an admin --Dark Falls talk 09:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support- no obvious problems with the user. Good experience, friendly. Meets the standards. Francisco Tevez 10:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support - no reason not to that I can find. Strong contributions to the project, strong support from the community. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 10:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support User is committed to the project and has shown they can be trusted many times. GDonato (talk) 11:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. Good all-round contributor. I like the candidness in question 3. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support - excellent editor..Good admin material ..--Cometstyles 12:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support, was friendly right from the start of his time here, and I believe he will continue to be a paragon of civility in the future. Resurgent insurgent 12:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oh fuck. You mean, he's not? — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support - Per the Runcorn incident in previos RfA. Plus, looks like a good user who would make a fine admin. ♠TomasBat 14:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support - Good editor (especially that they have edited articles rather than just revert vandalism), has gotten into a few strongly-worded disputes (I do not expect an admin to be an angel, I expect them to stand up in discussions, and even be contentious), and has a lot of edits (which means something or nothing, depending). Good nominee, should be a valuable admin. Orangemarlin 17:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. Bucketsofg 17:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Excellent user, should make a fine administrator. Carom 18:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support, good luck! The Rambling Man 18:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support - I'm not 100% happy with his answer to my question above, but it wouldn't be fair to oppose him just because he doesn't share my stance on AfD. Otherwise, a good candidate. Waltontalk 19:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. A very good editor, mature and trustworthy. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support - a fine editor & will make an excellent admin - Alison ☺ 19:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. Absolutely. I have every confidence he will make a great admin. Will (aka Wimt) 01:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Strong Support - You beat me to nomming him Nishkid64 and Ryan Postlethwaite. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 01:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support Per above. --Evilclown93(talk) 01:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. Why not? I trust him not to misuse the tools. —AldeBaer (c) 01:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. I remember thinking of this user as being slightly overenthusiastic a while ago. By the looks of things, his enthusiasm hasn't diminished, but he's now channelling it into very useful places. Long may it remain so. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support You folks read my mind. I was thinking to nominate Jreferee also. I've seen his consistent devotion to assisting new users at the help desk, and that reflects the experience and character I expect for an admin. Good luck. YechielMan 04:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. A sound candidate for adminship. Would be a great asset as well. Sr13 08:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support Only one reason to oppose that I can see, which was when the account was new, and everyone makes mistakes. I forgive it, expecially as it was ages ago. Stwalkerster talk 16:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support enough time has passed since his last RfA. Black Harry (Highlights|Contribs) 17:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. WjBscribe 21:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. Definate support, fantastic user, I have seen you around and you will make a great admin. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 22:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support. Excellent and valued member of the project's team whose opinions and perspective I highly value. CLA 23:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. No reason to oppose, and as the last RFA was tainted by fraud he arguably should be an admin already. I've noticed him around and it's never been for anything negative... should be okay as an admin. --W.marsh 03:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Strong support brilliant contributor at DYK, sensible. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. YAY Support Like the answers to my questions. --trey 03:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support No reason not too! Politics rule 04:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support The most important thing is, not only did he learn from it.. it hasn't happened again. No doubt on my support. SirFozzie 05:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support Mistakes are okay if you learn the lessons, and it seems he has. - KrakatoaKatie 07:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. This is an easy decision for me. Jreferee has been doing great work around the project for ages, now. Daniel 07:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support Looks good.--Húsönd 14:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support Valuable BLP helper. PouponOnToast 15:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support Martinp23 16:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Terence 03:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support sounds like he will make a great admin. OysterGuitarst 03:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support. Definitely. Sarah 12:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support Nat Tang talk to me! | Check on my contributions!|Email Me! 13:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support Seems like a good candidate. --John 14:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support Should make a good admin. Davewild 17:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 00:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support. You seem to be highly spoken of in the community. Happy Administrating! J-stan 01:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support no reason not to. Kwsn(Ni!) 02:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support. Seems to be a thoughtful, dedicated, and decent person who has taken constructive criticism well. I trust him to be on the light side of the Force :) Kla'quot (talk | contribs) 06:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  79. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 10:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support He has done well.-Libertyville 17:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support. Solid editor--Kubigula (talk) 17:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support. Good editor and encourages the work of other editors. -- Aivazovsky 17:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support. A fine editor, conscientious and compassionate. --Mantanmoreland 17:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support excellent editor, answer to my question is satisfactory. WooyiTalk to me? 23:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Has shown significant improvement since the past RFA to warrant adminship. Miranda 01:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support My only reservation last time was experience. WikiProject Biography needs more admins and I'm happy to support Jreferee. --kingboyk 13:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support A great contributor and certain to make a great admin. --VS talk 21:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support After carefully reviewing a number of his contributions to the BLP talk page and reading lamunknown's comment in the discussion above ("...definitely been willing to start discussion where there is question."), I support this nom and think he would do well as an admin. R. Baley 23:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support. I thought Jreferee would make an excellent admin last time, and nothing has changed for me. Errabee 10:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Peacent 10:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support Not that it's needed but I think he'll do just fine. JodyB talk 12:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support of course. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 13:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Very Strong Support You have a lot of experience and you can definatly do good stuff. --LucasBunchi 15:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support. ElinorD (talk) 22:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support- great editor. Eddie 02:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Still oppose per his abandonment of good faith and elaborate accusation of another editor being a living person during the Stevenstone incident. He made an elaborate accusation of fraud and improper conduct against a user with whom he had never interacted, an accusation which relied on poorly interpreted "evidence." The accused user in question has since been unblocked, and Jreferee's accusation called by another editor (not myself, though I wholeheartedly agree) "baseless." In the same thread, Jreferee also accused another user of being a sockpuppet for no reason. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive215#Stevenstone93 (talk • contribs) Even if a user is "a 14 year old boy who is racist and anti-homosexual" as you describe him, your behavior there was excessive. Italiavivi 00:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That was from March, and was well documented in his last RfA. He has since appologised for his action in that incident - in fact, he's done a really good job at learning from his mistakes there, that should count as a plus for the candidate. In a nutshell, it was an unfortunate incident, but everyone seems to have moved on from it and in my opinion, it has made Jreferee a better wikipedian. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not consider two months ago to be ancient history, and question having the tools in the hands of someone who jumps to such elaborate conclusions about both new and established users. Sorry. Italiavivi 00:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's 3 months since the incident to be precise. That was a one off incident, I'm possitive you won't find anything else like that in Jreferee's contributions, especially not since it occured, simply put - it was a rare lapse of judgement, something that we all have. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ryan, I don't consider three months to be ancient history either. So far as "something that we all have" is concerned, I disagree. We do not all make such elaborate accusations as Jreferee has done. Please don't take me wrong, Jreferee is a fine member of the project, but not a member who should have sysop tools given his behavior on the Administrator's noticeboard. Our continued back-and-forth here is unproductive, I believe we both respectfully see where the other is coming from. Italiavivi 00:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Pending development of this RfA. I opposed last time over this diff from November 2006. I'm not going to oppose over this a second time, but I'm still not sure this user wouldn't get carried away in problematic situations. —AldeBaer 11:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
That was when he had been here for a month - everyone makes mistakes when they are new, they don't understand the way we work or how we act now. That diff does not reflect how a now experienced Jreferee deals with problems. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, changing to well-deserved support. —AldeBaer (c) 01:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral Per the diff above by AldeBaer. ~ Wikihermit 23:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That was from November, I repeat myself, but his account was just a month old then - he was a newbie! God, I can't believe people are looking at the contribs of when Jreferee was a new user as a reason not to support - it's shocking. Ryan Postlethwaite
    Any reason not to support, someone will take that choice. Have you guys not heard of "learning from past mistakes"? It's been 7 months, and he's improved so much. Can't you be a little more forgiving? Majorly (talk) 01:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I can. Sorry for not supporting at once. I admittedly didn't check how long Jreferee had been on WP when he posted that. The other problem is that personally, I never learn from my past mistakes and therefore need someone to remind me that other people indulge in something called "Human self-reflection". —AldeBaer (c) 02:55, 24 June 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/Jreferee_2&oldid=1147988468"