🇮🇷 Iran Proxy | https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/JPG-GR
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JPG-GR

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.

JPG-GR

[edit]

Final: (96/2/1); Closed by Bibliomaniac15 on 04:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

JPG-GR (talk · contribs) - Every time that I decide to take a look at the admin backlog, one of the most consistent areas where help is sorely, sorely needed is Wikipedia:Requested moves. So I've looked at it for a little while now, and since I'm not that great at move issues I generally don't do it myself, and presumably others are in the same boat? So who's doing the moves? Well, a non-admin is doing those where admin intervention is not needed, and is basically a staple of the RM page. That person is JPG-GR. With over 5000 page moves done, he is clearly an asset to his area of specialty. His 2000+ edits to the RM page have to be either the most or nearly the most out of all Wikipedia users, which shows his dedication. Obviously, he would be a great help to handling that move backlog, and making sure those are taken care of. His edits are, of course, more than just that. His specialty in article writing and discussion is radio stations, as seen by his frequent discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio Stations. Examples of his work include [1] and [2], which isn't a major edit but shows that he clearly understands policy. He also does some vandalism reversion as well. All in all, since he would be a specialist contributor as an administrator, and he shows that he would clearly be dedicated to that area, he would make a good admin. Wizardman 04:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination. JPG-GR (talk) 05:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate

[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: As Wizardman indicated, I spend a lot of time working on move proposals at Wikipedia:Requested Moves and intend to continue doing so. Thanks to my use of {{db-move}}, I am well aware that the backlog at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion can sometimes get out of control and I'd be glad to help out there. As for the other staple areas admins work (WP:XFD comes to mind first and foremost, naturally), I have a help-where-needed attitude. I don't have any intention of jumping full force into any particular area or areas that I don't already spend time in without first spending plenty of time "feeling" my way around.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I helped spearhead the initiative to clean up the mess that were the United States radio lists (articles of the type List of radio stations in STATE) by working to coordinate the best format for said lists and then creating/fixing/updating them with info from the FCC database. A large portion of my content-related edits are to those lists and to the greater WP:WPRS-related framework. In general, I am much more "maintenance"-intensive than "content"-intensive (which should be clear from my work at WP:RM). I can't boast of any FAs written or impressive DYK counts. I account that to being much more of a math/science guy vs. a literature/arts guy.
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 fear that if an admin knows me and it's not for something WP:RM-related, it's probably something User:Neutralhomer-related. We had a period late last year where we were both working toward the betterment of WP:WPRS but with slightly different perspectives. We butted heads more than once and both suffered from the need to have the last word. I pride myself that during all that chaos, while the CAPSLOCK may have been selected here or there, I never crosses the policy line. NH and I have since made peace. In general, I definitely have a "walk-away when angered" position now and find it's better to say nothing at all rather than to let the verbal venom fly.
Optional questions from jc37
In order to illustrate that you have at least a passing knowledge/understanding of the policies and processes in relation to the tools and responsibilities that go along with adminship, please answer the following questions:
  • 4. Please describe/summarise why and when it would be appropriate for:
  • A: If said editor is in violation of Wikipedia policies. Personal attacks, violations of WP:BLP, continued vandalism after warnings, etc.
  • A: If said page is currently the victim of an edit war, IP vandalism from multiple IPs, etc.
  • A: If one or more of the criteria at WP:SPEEDY apply to said article. Be it something as complicated as a good looking though confirmed hoax or as simple as an article which has "uze guyz sux" as it's sole content.
  • A: Succinctly, if a policy prevents the maintaining or improvement of the encyclopedia. I can't cite a particular example - though if there were a common example, there would probably then (logically) be an associated rule, and then we would have a paradox.
  • 5. How does one determine consensus? And how may it be determined differently on a talk page discussion, an XfD discussion, and a DRV discussion.
  • A: Sometimes the only thing more difficult than defining "consensus" is coming to a consensus. Article-wise, it's a combination of the actual editing and the content-related discussion on the talkpage. (I've always been a fan of Image:CCC Flowchart 6.jpg, despite it's less than descriptive name.) With the deletion-related discussion, there is obviously much more discussion. In those cases, the presence of a consensus is determined by input from both the involved parties and some uninvolved editors and weighing the strength of the arguments. It's debate class on a worldwide scale.
  • 6. User:JohnQ leaves a message on your talk page that User:JohnDoe and User:JaneRoe have been reverting an article back and forth, each to their own preferred version. What steps would you take?
  • A: Firstly, my natural curiosity would cause me to question why an editor has returned after not making an edit in over five years. All kidding aside, it would depend on the particular situation. If either editor has broken the three-revert rule, a short block for the offender(s) may be in order. If more editors have joined in, full page projection might be necessary temporarily. Either way, I would inform the involved editors on their talkpage that they would be best to take their seesaw battle to the article talk page to discuss the situation (and gather additional input) as back-and-forth reverting is more a game of tug of war than anything else.
  • 7. Why do you wish to be an administrator?
  • A: "Wish" is almost too strong of a word. For instance, I wish that I'd win the lottery (probably would have to play first...). Basically, I've had a small handful of people comment in the last couple of months that I would make a good admin. I believe in the Wikipedia project and am willing to dedicate a portion of my free time to its benefit. If having a few extra tools would do that, as I believe it can, then I'm for it. If the community disagrees, sobeit. JPG-GR (talk) 06:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Blooded Edge
8:: As an administrator, you will most probably come across rash users/IPs, who will not take kindly to reversions by yourself, for whatever the reason. Indeed, you may already have been in such situations before. I want to know what exactly your personal stance is on the cool down block. Wikipedia generally discourages admins from taking this course of action, due to the belief it only inflames the situation. However, there is still the small chance that the subject will indeed take the oppurtunity to review his/her actions, and may change his/her way of acting to something more appropriate. Assuming that Wikipedia had no clear policy on this, would you use such a block? Or wait until the IP/User simply becomes too irksome to ignore?
A: If the policy says that cool down blocks "should not be used" (and it does), then that is the policy I will follow. If Wikipedia had no such policy, I would act as those before me have (i.e. if cool down blocks were a common and accepted thing, fine). Wikipedia is not a young project and I don't intend to stray into any undiscovered/unexplored areas of policy, etc.
9.:This isn't really to do with your work on Wikipedia, but is important if you indeed gain the requested status. Is your password alphanumeric? Formed by at least 8 characters? Not by words in the dictionary? Not in the weakest password list? A hiijacked admin account can do widespread damage across the site, it is important to confirm the security of your account.
A: My password is secure. Saying anything more specific wouldn't be very smart.
Question from How do you turn this on
10. What made you decide to run now, instead of when I asked you if you would?
A: IIRC, you were either the first or second to bring it up. As more people suggested it, I considered it more and more.
Optional questions from Aitias
11. Is there any circumstance in which you would delete a page despite a Hangon tag?
A. To reference my own imaginary article from earlier, {{hangon}} wouldn't prevent me from deleting an article who's content was solely ""uze guyz sux". In a case like that, it's clear you have a vandal who's more than a little familiar with how this place works.
12. What would your personal standards be on granting and removing rollback?
A. I don't see myself as someone who would frequent Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback. In terms of removing rollback, I would do so if requested by an editor who wants to remove their own use of the tool or if abuse of said tool is quite clear.
13. Under what circumstances may a non-free photograph of a living person be used on Wikipedia?
A. The circumstances are very rare, indeed. If someone has long since retired and who's notability is largely based on their appearance when they were younger/more active, it may very well be ok.
14. An IP vandalises a page. You revert the vandalism and give the IP a final warning on its talk page. After that the IP vandalises your userpage. Summarising, the IP was sufficiently warned and vandalised (your userpage) after a final warning. Would you block the IP yourself or rather report it to WP:AIV? Respectively, would you consider blocking the IP yourself a conflict of interests?
A. I'd report it to WP:AIV. Whether the block was impartial or not, better safe than sorry, no?
Optional questions from LAAFan
15:: If you see an established user start to vandalize, what steps would you make to insure it stops?
A: First and foremost, I would post to their talkpage and ask what's going on. (Do note that I would do so in plain English instead of plain templates.) In the event that I get a reply, said reply would dictate further actions (or inactions). If no reply is received, we may have a vandal who has gone to great lengths to blend in, a compromised account, etc. If the vandalism continues, a short block is likely in order to prevent further vandalism/disruption.
16:: If you see one IP address repeatedly vandalizing one page, but none other recent vandalism has occurred, would you protect the page? Why or why not?
A: If a particular IP is vandalizing a particular page, it's much more efficient (I would think) to block the user (after sufficient warning) than to protect the page. If one were to protect the page, how would innocent IPs edit it?

General comments

[edit]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/JPG-GR before commenting.

Discussion

[edit]
  • Any chance that you (JPG) are likely to enable e-mail? Not a deal breaker, so not a question for the above section. Pedro :  Chat  07:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have now enabled email. As a regular editor, there was (I felt) no need for anyone to contact me in private that couldn't just as easily occur on a talkpage. JPG-GR (talk) 16:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks! In general I think 99% of communication should be on Wikipedia, but there are occasions when someone will need to contact you privately, particularly with admin tools at your disposal. Pedro :  Chat  06:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You forgot to accept the nomination. ;-) Pie is good (Apple is the best) 14:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My senility is becoming increasingly frustrating. I know I've interacted with JPG-GR on something, but can't remember what, or when. I remember that at the time I was struck by the fact that he handled whatever it was either really well, or it annoyed me, but I can't remember which one, and I can't fnd our interaction in his contribs or mine. Isn't there a tool somewhere that lists pages that two editors have both edited? Like to check if we were sock puppets or something? Help a feeble-minded old codger out, and tell me where that tool is, because this is driving me nuts. --barneca (talk) 20:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support
[edit]
  1. Beat-the-nom support; specialist admins are okay, and this candidate has no warning bells attached. — Coren (talk) 04:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Absolutely Go help that backlog at WP:RM. good candidate. Protonk (talk) 04:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Definitely. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. I've seen this editor in action over at WP:RM and I respect his work. EdJohnston (talk) 04:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. No problems here. Tan | 39 05:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - Specialist candidate. Wisdom89 (T / C) 05:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support, Most Definitely. RockManQ (talk) 05:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. I see no problems. DiverseMentality(Boo!) 05:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong support - I run across this user frequently via his G6 tagging for requested page moves and have always found his work to be accurate, clueful and per consensus. WP:RM and Wikipedia in general can only benefit from JPG-GR getting the bit. Nancy talk 05:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support No reason to oppose really, although the issue bought up by Aude is somewhat concerning I don't really find it too concerning to the point where there's evidence that the candidate will abuse the tools, which is what I do care about when considering RfA candidates. We all have our learning experience and I think the user will learn from it. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 06:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Already knows how to handle the backlog, why don't we give JPG-GR the tools to help out more? per my RfA criteria Foxy Loxy Pounce! 07:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support - While not perfect (who or what is?), I liked a fair part of your answers, and my quick look over your edit history didn't ring any alarm bells. And from what I can tell you have a fairly good handle on consensus. We simply need more admins who understand that it's about weighing arguments, and not about counting "votes". - jc37 08:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. A fine candidate. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Clearly a specialist in a sorely under "staffed" area that we urgently need to grant the bit to. Also the answer to Q7 was particularly pleasing - an excellent attitude / outlook. Pedro :  Chat  08:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Yes, we need more page movers, always more people moving pages, the faster the better </sarcasm> MBisanz talk 08:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - We need more admins in this area, but I'd like to see email enabled. — neuro(talk) 08:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. Looks like a fine hard-working candidate willing to take on tedious duties. I read the opposition by Aude, and while I can understand the annoyance, it is mostly a result of someone trying to work efficiently, not a lapse in judgment. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Excellent moving work. —Ceran [speak] 11:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Looks good from what I can see and I think specialist candidates are fine. After all, we are all specialists in some area of admin work that we take part in and that is no bad thing. He does what he knows best to do and I am more than happy to support him to continue doing it - just a bit more effective. And as for the oppose, well, the candidate said he would learn from it. That's good enough for me. Also, I like the answer of Q7, admins need a bit of humor ;-) SoWhy 11:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Strong support - I assumed he already was one, he behaves professionally and manages janitorial tasks few want to bother with. Orderinchaos 11:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support net positive. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Great track has been around since Aug 2006 and over 19000 mainspace edits with over 40000 overall.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. Good track record as Pharoah says above; help always needed at RM. In response to the email 'situation', I agree - even if it means setting up a separate email address for the wiki (as I have done) it shouldn't be a problem. Caulde 12:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. What Sjakalle and Orderinchaos said. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support great amount of experience, I also like how he didn't jump immediately into an RfA when first approached. --Banime (talk) 13:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Seems good to me II MusLiM HyBRiD II 13:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support i like the idea of specialist administrators and this one should be good at what he sets out to do.Mjchesnel (talk) 13:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Wizardman nominated; 'nuff said. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support, why not. But please enable email :) Garden. 14:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Why not? America69 (talk) 14:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. An excellent all-around contribution record, both in mainspace and projectspace, good answers to the questions, good judgement and attitude. Will definitely be an asset as an admin. Nsk92 (talk) 15:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support as nom. Wizardman 15:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support an excellent contributor. Plus a sensible signature, containing just the right amount of capital letters, I'll overlook the hyphen. RMHED (talk) 17:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The first laugh of the day for me. Thanks. :-D JPG-GR (talk) 17:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Great all-around. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 17:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support I thought he was one until a requested move both he and I were involved in. Deals with all moves I can remember, and does the menial and boring tasks like filing problematic requests, moving requests around, etc. Very dedicated editor in need of the tools. Good luck! PeterSymonds (talk) 17:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support - I trust Wizardman's judgment as well as many of those in support. I'm not moved by the opposes. لennavecia 18:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support I offered to nominate him back in August. Good to see he's accepted. -- how do you turn this on 18:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. naerii 18:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. Quite impressive. And Wikipedia:Requested moves needs another responsible admin. —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 18:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support - For sure. CL — 19:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. I see this user's work regularly in my editing, and I trust his judgement. Having administrative tools should make his work easier and thus improve the encyclopaedia. Furthermore I have seen nothing whatsoever to make me suppose that he would misuse these extra abilities. Knepflerle (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Seems good to me. —αἰτίας •discussion• 20:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support, no problems that I can see - really looks like you could make effective and competent use of the admin tools. ~ mazca t|c 21:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support 5000 page moves!? Wikipedia (especially WP:RM) will definitely benefit from giving this editor the tools. LittleMountain5 review! 21:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. Most definitely. Good luck, Malinaccier (talk) 23:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support Why the hell not, it's no big deal.--intraining Jack In 23:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Suppport per Caspian Blue! Usually, I hate it when people !vote to support based upon an !vote in the oppose... but the reasoning that Caspian Blue uses to oppose is the exact reasoning that I would use to support! You don't have to have the tools to be an admin, and if JPG is acting like an admin and seen as an admin, then it is about time that we grant him a title he already wears!---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 00:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    PS my hats off to Wizardman, I REALLY like supporting niche candidates, we need more people who will frequent unusual areas!---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 03:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support per all of the above. Parsecboy (talk) 00:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support "I thought he already was" :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 02:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Oui - Je voudrais un JPG-GR pour le mode d'administrateur, s'il vous plait. Xclamation point 02:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support - he would clearly benefit from being given the tools, and wikipedia would benefit if he were given the tools. - Richard Cavell (talk) 02:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support User does not appear as if he would abuse the tools. -- Avi (talk) 03:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Giggy (talk) 03:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Hello, I am taking pre-med classes with the University of Phoenix Online and I was practicing my gastric bypass surgery lessons on my brother-in-law, and...oh, wrong queue. But while I am here: Support for an editor who knows how to operate! Ecoleetage (talk) 04:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support would be a good specialist admin.--Lenticel (talk) 04:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. The username is familiar to me from {{db-move}} requests in CAT:CSD, and I grew to appreciate this editor's conscientious handling of such requests. I think the project as a whole will benefit from supplying JPG-GR with the full toolkit. — Athaenara ✉ 05:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support - Excellent grasp of policy and how to apply it, and more importantly how not to. Granting the tools is a clear net benefit to the project. Prince of Canada t | c 06:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support. You've obviously managed to piss off at least one editor, but given the amount of work you've done in that area, and your overall edit count, it would be truly amazing if nobody opposed you. I'm not dismissing his complaint, and you don't seem to do that either, but pile-on support is in order. VG ☎ 07:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support, no reason not to. Stifle (talk) 08:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. fish&karate 11:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support per Caspian blue. ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 12:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope your reason to support per Caspian blue is because of the same reason as mine is, otherwise, I find these "per oppose" supports to a poor indicator of the person who uses them.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 14:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I hadn't noticed you had done the same. My reason is that his rationale is used so often in support that it's a cliché; because it's a damn good reason to support. ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 15:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, I can accept it and respect it... I just despise when I see people being POINTY and !voting "per oppose" because they don't like the reasoning used in the oppose. But I agree, in this case, his rationale is the exact rationale that I would use to support. If Blue had shown that he closed them incorrectly or contentiously, then it might have been another story, but the fact that he thought JPG was an admin, is testimony to JPG's ability to close them fairly.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 17:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support: NeutralHomer • Talk • October 13, 2008 @ 12:45
  63. Support rootology (C)(T) 13:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support really good answers to the above questions! fr33kman -s- 13:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support. Why the hell not? AdjustShift (talk) 14:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support. - Because of big, positive contribution. Andrew18 @ 16:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support In the disputes I've seen JPG-GR in, I've been generally impressed with the way he carries himself. Metros (talk) 20:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. I almost never pile on, but since Sadalmelik went to the trouble of helping me find my previous interaction with JPR-GR, I'll support based on the fact that (a) my two previous minor interactions were positive, (b) obviously knows what he's doing, and (c) not a drama queen. --barneca (talk) 21:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support - You mean he isn't one already? Pfainuk talk 22:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. support - My sentiment exactly. I see JPG-GR cleaning up so many RM's, I thought they already were an admin. Apteva (talk) 23:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support - per support votes number one through seventy. ;) iMatthew (talk) 00:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support - I see no legitimate reason to oppose, and JPG-GR has showm a respectable dedication to this wiki, so, as I said, support. Javascap (talk) 03:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  73. My first "The user isn't already one?" support in a long while. Keegantalk 05:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support - Extensive positive edits and 1337 skill, nice work! -FlyingToaster (talk) 05:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support. Per nom by Wizardman (talk · contribs) and answers to the first three questions, and positive contributions to this project. Cirt (talk) 12:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support Candidate is willing to work, presents (to me, at least) no reason for concern that tools would be misused, and (per Q7) seems to have a solid understanding of what WP:NOBIGDEAL really means. Good luck! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 12:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support No problems here. Dedicated and competent. GlassCobra 13:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support moving this candidate to Wikipedia:List of administrators. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support. Synergy 16:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support Charles Edward 21:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support Don't often weigh in on these discussions (only once before, as far as I can remember), but I've seen this user around WPRS and I like the cut of their jib. I'm also in favour of anyone who's inclined toward the low glamour, high backlog tasks. Mlaffs (talk) 04:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support WTHN, we need more editors like this. User:MrMarkTaylor What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box 19:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support – but, please take the advice of the first "oppose" voter to heart. Thank you. Bwrs (talk) 00:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support: Dedicated in his areas of interest. No concerns except for not having an userpage than merely a redirect to the talk page -- Tinu Cherian - 11:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Strong Support per Caspian Blue. *snorts* Can't see any chance the tools would be misused. -- Logical Premise Ergo? 15:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Strong Support Excellent candidate.--LAAFansign review 00:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support I always thought he was an admin. --Pwnage8 (talk) 12:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support will be fine. — Jojo • Talk • 19:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support - Good user, good admin potential, good luck! 00:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
  90. Strong Support: The candidate is dedicated and well experienced, and giving him the tools will be nothing but beneficial to Wikipedia. As for the opposes, I tend to accept the first one as a honest mistake. And I'll take the second one as a sign that he will do well as an admin. Chamal talk work 04:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support - We need more admins specializing in specific areas of wiki, and admins willing to clear some of those massive backlogs :) --Flewis(talk) 13:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support as candidate has never been blocked after making tens of thousands of contributions. --A Nobody 14:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Excellent editor. Acalamari 16:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support – I have seen him around doing some good work. I like most of this editor's answers and contributions. Will be fine as an administrator. – RyanCross (talk) 17:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support Icewedge (talk) 19:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support. JPG's performance in the move arena suggests he has precisely the work ethos we as a project should covet in any Administrator. Anthøny (talk) 00:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
  1. Oppose - I am concerned about how JPG-GR handles the requested moves page. On September 23, I added a move request tag [3] to the talk page of the Islamic terrorism article. JPG-GR came by 18 minutes later and removed the tag from the talk page [4], with the edit summary "rm move request template - page not listed at WP:RM", because I hadn't yet added it to the requested moves page. Clearly a requested move was intended by my adding the tag, and removing it was impolite. I'm sure it was unintended, but JPG-GR also blanked most of the page along with removing the tag. Instead, the thing to do would be to add my request to the Wikipedia:Requested moves or leave a note on my talk page, or be patient. Please remember that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and don't trounce on other users for procedural mistakes or not following the three requested move steps quick enough. Such actions only frustrate other users and have the potential to drive away contributors. Removing the requested move tag from the article talk page was enough of a problem, but easily reverted. Although admin actions are mostly reversable, more damage can be done. Speedy deletions, which JPG-GR appears interested in handling, is one area where being too quick and focused on process, can be a problem (see Frog Legs Rag which was subject of a recent Not the Wikipedia Weekly episode). I don't like opposing anyone at RFA, but given my experience, I'm not ready to trust JPG-GR with the admin tools. --Aude (talk) 04:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Firstly, I assure you that the blanking of a good portion of the page was not intentional and am somewhat disturbed such a large portion of text was removed and I didn't notice. As for removing the template, I do a run through of CAT:RM as part of my WP:RM "routine" and often find pages tagged with {{move}} only - with no discussion on the talk page nor proposal at WP:RM. Accordingly, it is possible that one of my random cleanings of CAT:RM will catch someone in mid-procedure. In the future, I will do a more consistent job of comparing the time of the addition of {{move}} to the talk page vs. the current time. JPG-GR (talk) 04:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It took me 20 minutes to do step 2 of WP:RM, which is create a place for discussion with my move rationale (along with finding sources to support my request). [5] You need to be more patient with people. I'm concerned about the ramifications of such impatience when it comes to using admin tools to handle speedy deletions, and other tasks. If this RFA doesn't pass, I would be happy to reconsider at a later time. --Aude (talk) 04:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weak Oppose (a little leaning toward neutral) I thought the candidate is already an admin because closing heated WP:RM discussion is mostly taken care by admins. --Caspian blue (talk) 16:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion of this comment can be found on the talkpage: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/JPG-GR#Caspian Blue's !vote. WJBscribe (talk) 23:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Strong Oppose - this rfa is a breeding ground for editors trying to display their 'flashy signatures' --Avoid panic (talk) 09:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indef-blocked sock. J.delanoygabsadds 09:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
Neutral - waiting on question responses. - jc37 05:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the first half dozen, can we just point to the appropriate policy/guideline and save a boatload of time for everyone? Tan | 39 06:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I've mentioned elsewhere, my evaluation of the responses isn't wholly reliant on the quoting of policies/guidelines. - jc37 08:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indenting !vote as dupe to a support above. The support above came after this one.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 02:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)confirmed with JC that this is what he intended... he had actually indented it himself, but his indent was undone.[reply]
  1. Neutral - I would like to support the candidate, but I just have this gut instinct telling me not to. Not too sure what the reasons are myself, but instead of commiting myself to either of the two camps, I'll just sit pretty here for a while, until I change my mind. Blooded Edgeawards 19:37, 12 October 2008 (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/JPG-GR&oldid=1306427456"