Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/JamieS93 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Editing stats for JamieS93 at 18:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC): 

General user info
Username: JamieS93
User groups: rollbacker
First edit: Nov 05, 2007 16:58:02
Unique articles edited: 4,124
Average edits per page: 2.21
Total edits (including deleted): 9,121
Deleted edits: 358
Live edits: 8,763

Namespace totals
Article	4205	47.99%
Talk	555	6.33%
User	297	3.39%
User talk	1595	18.20%
Wikipedia	565	6.45%
Wikipedia talk	74	0.84%
File	61	0.70%
Template	602	6.87%
Template talk	760	8.67%
Help	1	0.01%
Category	36	0.41%
Category talk	3	0.03%
Portal	9	0.10%
Graph

Month counts
2007/11	10	
2007/12	16	
2008/01	89	
2008/02	443	
2008/03	727	
2008/04	1252	
2008/05	664	
2008/06	338	
2008/07	371	
2008/08	615	
2008/09	440	
2008/10	687	
2008/11	357	
2008/12	448	
2009/01	387	
2009/02	144	
2009/03	608	
2009/04	1046	
2009/05	121
	
Logs
Accounts created: 61
Pages moved: 74
Pages patrolled: 2069
Files uploaded: 37

Top edited articles
Article

    * 78 - Matthew_West
    * 71 - Leeland
    * 47 - Give_Me_Your_Eyes
    * 45 - Brandon_Heath
    * 39 - TobyMac
    * 39 - Sanctus_Real
    * 31 - Needtobreathe
    * 28 - Skillet_(band)
    * 28 - Thirty_Years'_War
    * 24 - Georgia_Democratic_primary,_2008


Talk

    * 10 - Matthew_West
    * 8 - Nick_Jonas
    * 6 - Underoath/GA1
    * 6 - Leeland
    * 5 - Early_life_of_Keith_Miller/GA1
    * 4 - Early_life_of_Keith_Miller
    * 4 - Love_Story_(Taylor_Swift_song)
    * 4 - The_Bella_Twins
    * 4 - Jonas_Brothers
    * 4 - Pie


User

    * 110 - JamieS93
    * 31 - JamieS93/Contributions
    * 26 - JamieS93/1
    * 23 - JamieS93/Userboxes
    * 12 - JamieS93/monobook.js
    * 10 - JamieS93/Awards
    * 9 - JamieS93/Status
    * 9 - JamieS93/DYKnumber
    * 8 - JamieS93/DYKs
    * 7 - JamieS93/Sandbox


User talk

    * 63 - JamieS93
    * 22 - Royalbroil
    * 7 - AdjustShift
    * 5 - Juliancolton
    * 4 - Casliber
    * 4 - RyanCross
    * 4 - Ramblersen
    * 4 - Mailer_diablo
    * 4 - Efe
    * 4 - Deepak_D'Souza


Wikipedia

    * 29 - Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism
    * 21 - Help_desk
    * 17 - Requests_for_adminship/JamieS93
    * 15 - Good_article_nominations
    * 8 - WikiProject_Christian_music/Featured
    * 7 - Peer_review/Matthew_West_(musician)/archive1
    * 7 - Spotlight/Current
    * 6 - Requests_for_adminship/Kerotan
    * 6 - Requests_for_adminship/Juliancolton_3
    * 6 - Usernames_for_administrator_attention


Wikipedia talk

    * 40 - Did_you_know
    * 5 - WikiProject_Categories/uncategorized
    * 4 - Twinkle
    * 3 - WikiProject_Christian_music
    * 3 - Requests_for_adminship
    * 3 - WikiProject_Amphibians_and_Reptiles
    * 2 - Spotlight
    * 2 - Friendly
    * 2 - Copyrights
    * 2 - WikiProject_Templates


File

    * 3 - The_Outsiders_book.jpg
    * 3 - Livelikewerealive.jpg
    * 3 - Give_Me_Your_Eyes.jpg
    * 3 - Fool's_Paradise_MM.jpg
    * 2 - Alien_Youth_alt_cover.jpg
    * 2 - MatthewWest_History_cover.jpg
    * 2 - Speaking_Louder_Than_Before_album.jpg
    * 2 - EvenHeroesNeedaParachute.jpg
    * 2 - Rumble_Fish_cover.jpg
    * 2 - TheFaceofLove.jpg


Template

    * 424 - Did_you_know/Next_update
    * 89 - Did_you_know/Next_next_update
    * 12 - Categorization_progress
    * 6 - Spotlight
    * 5 - Christian-song-stub
    * 5 - Matthew_West
    * 4 - Leeland
    * 4 - Brandon_Heath
    * 3 - BarlowGirl
    * 3 - Spotlight_Barnstar


Template talk

    * 758 - Did_you_know
    * 1 - Christian-song-stub
    * 1 - WikiProject_Television


Help

    * 1 - Reverting


Category

    * 3 - B-Class_Contemporary_Christian_articles
    * 2 - Start-Class_Contemporary_Christian_articles
    * 2 - Planet_X_albums
    * 2 - Brandon_Heath_songs
    * 1 - Christian_musicians
    * 1 - Songs
    * 1 - WikiProject_Stub_sorting_participants
    * 1 - Stubs
    * 1 - Copyright_violations_for_speedy_deletion
    * 1 - Unassessed_Contemporary_Christian_articles


Category talk

    * 1 - Christian_song_stubs
    * 1 - Brandon_Heath_albums
    * 1 - Brandon_Heath_songs


Portal

    * 2 - Tropical_cyclones/Things_you_can_do
    * 2 - Christian_music/Good_articles
    * 1 - Elvis_Presley/Did_you_know
    * 1 - Technology/Selected_articles/2
    * 1 - Technology/Selected_pictures/1
    * 1 - Technology/Did_you_know
    * 1 - Current_events/2008_August_4

WereSpielChequers's oppose and subsequent comments[edit]

  1. Weak Oppose I'm sorry Jamie, I really hate to oppose and rarely do so, but you did say that CAT:SD was one place where you were offering to wield the mop. These two attacks were both less than a months ago (you tagged the first as vandalism and the second as non-notable). Also I don't think that this was a G1 (though it was from last December). I'm not bothered by your age and I'm happy to see the clean block log, diverse contributions and civil talk page. But I don't think your CSD tagging is yet up to scratch. I'm sorry, and if this fails I hope to be able to support next time. ϢereSpielChequers 20:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The first two seem perfectly fine to me (and the deleting admins thought so, as well). –Juliancolton | Talk 20:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Julian here, Werespiel. Speedy deleting an article where the entire content is "he's a fucking tool" seems perfectly appropriate. Same with the other one which was an attack page. You do realize JamieS didn't create those pages, right? Simply had them tagged for deletion? Am I missing something? Keeper | 76 20:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think he's complaining about them being tagged under the wrong speedy criterion; rather than being incorrectly tagged altogether. That said, it sounds very possible to me that the tagged criterion also applied in both cases - although I agree that attack pages should always be tagged as such in preference to anything else they may fit. Not sure as I'm unable to view them myself; but this doesn't sound too bad as dodgy taggings go. ~ mazca t|c 20:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So it's a wonkery issue then? Yes, it should be speedy deleted, but it's a "class CV7dash4subB6", not a "CVudash4subB7", so technically....Keeper | 76 20:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (ECx2) OK Piling on. (resisted temptation 3 x before.) I'd be more concerned if the candidate had tagged something that was not CSD material. Sometimes one need not be overly rigid in choosing a CSD tag. I think more than one applied with the examples shown. And sometimes a bad attempt at a joke can be mistaken for an attack. Certainly room for doubt.  :) Cheers, Dlohcierekim 20:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My philosophy: if it was deletable, there isn't a problem. There's so much worse someone can do than click the wrong number. Really, people should not be opposed for correctly tagging stuff that needs deleting. I think CSD numbers are silly anyway - an unnumbered list of criteria should be provided, and the admin/tagger should simply give the deletion reason. Besides, non-notable/vandalism aren't necessarily far off attack pages anyhow. So I don't get the big deal. Majorly talk 20:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In defense of WSC, bad tagging can be an indicator of a person who doesn't know or care about the policies/criteria, and can be an issue if it is shown to be a consistent pattern of error. I honestly didn't look too closely at Jamies CSD's but I didn't see what I felt to be a consistent and obvious problem. But bad tagging can be a valid reason---especially in somebody who leans on the deletionist side (Which Jamie doesn't appear to be.)---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree B-man, if it's a pattern. Labelling "he's a fucking tool" as vandalism is not an error in any regard. Keeper | 76 20:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What tagging was bad? The examples given were all fine. As long as it's deleted there's no issue. The tag is merely there to draw attention to administrators - the tagger never makes the final decision. Majorly talk 20:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think attack page would have been a better option, but I won't fault the selections Jamie made. (Attack page is better because some admins will try to clear attack pages and copy vios before clearing other CSD criteria.) But if WSC feels that those are wrong, as a better option existed, I can't argue. The G1 from December was definitely wrong (but again as WSC pointed out, that was almost half a year ago.) I am not defending WSC's decision on this case, but I am defending the rationale to use bad tagging to evaluate a candidate.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The G1 may not be accurate but is not a bad call. One could call it a blatant case of an implausible theory or hoax. I've personally become a bit more careful with CSDs after reading SoWhy's creed document but none of these examples are a close call on deletion.--RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 21:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone should archive this whole conversation. Or do we need a bunch of conversation about whether archiving the conversation would technically be appropriate? Keeper | 76 21:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As a G1 it was incorrect. G1 explicitly excludes hoaxes/vandalism. That being said, I don't get worked up about tagging mistakes unless I see a clear consistent pattern. An occassional goof might be the result of hitting the wrong button. The only way to fix a mistagged article is to undelete and then delete again, and that generally isn't worth the effort.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC) (On a side note, there is currently discussion at CSD about G1 and whether or not it should be deprecated.)[reply]
    I agree with Spartacus!. "Just tagging the article" is really not the point, and misjudging the criteria is quite a potential issue. At the time, I probably thought all of those tags were fine because the deleting admin agreed on all three cases (I usually always check afterwards the articles that I've tagged). I only vaguely remember the G1 page, so I can't assess what the proper criterion would have been. Best, Jamie☆S93 21:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify, the reason it was a weak oppose was that yes all three merited deletion, my concern is that the codes were wrong. If the candidate had been nomming stuff for deletion that really shouldn't have been deleted I would have opposed, if she had not said she intended to work in CSD I would have commented but not opposed. Now that does truly sound wonky and bureaucratic; but if something is tagged as an attack it usually gets deleted more quickly, the warning messages that you are prompted to template the author with vary according to the code - so the wrong code can result in the wrong message going to the author. Lastly if a CSD tagger is using the wrong codes I fear they may delete under the wrong codes - and potentially speedy delete stuff that should be prodded AFD'd or perhaps not deleted at all. ϢereSpielChequers 22:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    ϢereSpielChequers (or anyone else), would you mind briefly summarizing the contents of the deleted articles for non-admin scrutiny? decltype (talk) 22:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see JulianColton's comment near the top of the discussion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "The first two seem perfectly fine to me (and the deleting admins thought so, as well)."? That's doesn't really say anything about their content. decltype (talk) 05:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's odd; I could have sworn there was more detail up there. In any event: the first article is about an individual (presumably a classmate or something) and reads, in its entirety, "he's a fuckin' toool"; the second is also about an individual and leads off with the statement that his mother is a chimpanzee and goes downhill from there; and the third is called "sacrificing ants" and discusses nonsensically how 5-year-olds love destroying anthills by pouring gasoline on them, etc. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. In which case I agree with ϢereSpielChequers, those taggings are far from correctI, too, perceive the G1 and A7 taggings to be incorrect. On the other hand, the candidate did the right thing in tagging them for speedy deletion. Still, a valid reason for concern. decltype (talk) 09:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So "he's a fuckin' tool" isn't vandalism? –Juliancolton | Talk 13:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, my bad. For some reason I thought it was tagged A7. Sorry. I still think it should be deleted as an attack page, though. {{grammar}}To clarify, I am not going to oppose based on this, because the candidate "did the right thing", but I think it's a legitimate reason to do so. decltype (talk) 14:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah but A7 would still apply as being a fucking tool is not by itself an assertion of notability (sorry Maynard). — CharlotteWebb 15:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    An assertion of importance / significance, you mean? ;) True, but I still think it would be an odd choice for a page that served no purpose but to disparage the subject. decltype (talk) 00:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Continuation of debate from Malleus's oppose brought to talk as it is no longer about candidate[edit]

Malleus, if I'm brutally honest, I've seen more mature behaviour from Jamie than yourself. I think I'd know who I would trust more with my car... ScarianCall me Pat! 21:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What leads you to believe that I have even the slightest interest in your opinion? As you must know, I think you're a disgrace as an administrator. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At least I had the ability to become one. At least people trust and respect me. I would rather be a disgrace as an administrator than you. You have no sway over anyone's opinion on this Earth. You hold no respect or dignity. You are just this sad little man that goes around Wikipedia thinking he's big and hard just because he can type. Big fucking deal. You can't hurt anyone with your little insults, jibes, and quips. You're a fucking nutcase if you derive some sort of sick sadistic pleasure from insulting someone. Get the fuck off of Wikipedia. You don't give a fuck about this project and no one, I swear to God, no one would give a flying fuck if you left. Have some self-awareness and LOOK at yourself and how you portray your character on this website... Do you think you've ever been nice to someone? Do you know what altruism is? Every day I check my e-mails and write out explanations and answers to new users who have gotten stuck and needed help. Every day I answer questions on my talk page to people requiring administrative assistance. Every fucking day I come onto here and I do my best for this project. Every single action I do improves this encyclopaedia. And for what? So you can be a fucking prick to anyone you want? I'm actually sick of people like you. I'm sick of spending my free time building this encyclopaedia when LUCK PUSHERS like you can just go and say what you fucking like. You are not important enough to even waste time on. You are the bane of Wikipedia. That's not an opinion. That's a cold, hard fact. ScarianCall me Pat! 05:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Scarian, your personal attacks and incivility are disgusting and you should be stripped of your tools by now. And coming from me, who thinks NPA and CIV are mostly abused policies, that's something. So much for trust and respect. لennavecia 14:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What makes these comments even more appalling is that apparently Scarian had to take his vindictiveness to Malleus' page and to his own page where I have already reprimanded him on both pages. His behavior here is absolutely deplorable... and compounded by pasting it all over creation!---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Scarian, with all due respect. Please get a grip. That was wholly uncalled for. Dlohcierekim 14:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everyone, please stop. When mud is slung around, it hits the candidate unintentionally (as it did the last time round). Let's keep this RfA drama-free. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know how mud has a tendency to stuck when it's flung around here so I just want to make a brief statement. Scarian has accused me here of calling this candidate immature, and has used that as his excuse for his own outrageous behaviour. I want to point out that I have never said that JamieS93 is immature, and that I was at pains to explain my opposition to her here. So far as I'm aware there is no animosity between JamieS93 and myself, and no reason why there should be. This unfortunate episode has absolutely nothing to do with her. and it would be very unfair if the poor behaviour of one overly hormonal supporter was to reflect badly on this RfA. Even though I opposed I have no real worries about Jamie becoming an administrator as she seems to be a very sensible young lady. My opposition is rooted in a matter of principle, it's not personal. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I'm curious as to the line for those who opose based on age. In some countries that could be as high as what 21? And maybe as low as 12? OK, maybe I'm wrong. But if a candidate is above the legal age in their country of origin (and therefore not a minor) are they regarded as such by an opposer from a different country whose legal age is higher? --candle•wicke 23:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You mistakenly assume that those who oppose based on age are a homogeneous group who it makes sense to ask such a question of. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. I was just hoping such a person might appear and engage in a discussion with another such person and perhaps more might join in. Then I would read the fallout (or whatever one might call it) with interest. --candle•wicke 23:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would there be any point in such a discussion, in your opinion? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would imagine it wouldn't achieve anything or change anything but one must always try to engage in dialogue when it comes to tricky issues. :) --candle•wicke 00:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "tricky issue" here, simply a difference of opinion. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/JamieS93_2&oldid=1140386871"