→Questions for the candidate: Answers - 1st draft |
|||
Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants: |
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants: |
||
:'''1.''' What administrative work do you intend to take part in? |
:'''1.''' What administrative work do you intend to take part in? |
||
::'''A:''' First off, I actually ''like'' back-end maintenance so I will likely do work in clearing CSD and closing AfD. I believe my record demonstrates that I have a good grasp of Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Since I have not done many other administrative functions, I do not know what I will enjoy and be good at. Whatever areas I work in I will approach with care. As can be seen on the pages linked from my [[User:Jbhunley/sandbox/scratchpad/ScratchPad4|work space]] when I was learning CSD I would annotate the log to keep track of ''why'' something was declined so I could learn the difference between what I thought was appropriate tagging and the consensus view. I stopped annotation long ago but I pay attention to any declines and I still keep track of my AfD nominations so I will know ''why'' I was wrong or what I missed that led me to withdraw a nomination. {{pb}} Beyond the basic maintenance, and I recognize saying this may cause reticence in some editors, I am interested in working in conflict management. That means the sensitive areas like AE and ANI. How behavioral issues are managed or resolved pretty much defines the editing environment and I believe I can make a positive contribution there. I have complained about administrators making bad calls or mishandling a conflict. I bet we all have but most of us do not really have a 'boots on the ground' understanding of making those calls. I intend to get that experience and understanding and then see if I can help improve things. I know this is not an area to go charging into making rash decisions. I know it requires care, a bit of empathy and respect for community norms and that is how I will approach it. |
|||
::'''A:''' |
|||
:'''2.''' What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why? |
:'''2.''' What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why? |
||
::'''A:''' Well, I am pretty proud of [[User:Jbhunley/sandbox/Ignatius of Jesus]]. It is not finished and may not be by the time this RfA starts but I have enjoyed working on it immensely and it gives me a glimpse of what those editors who are capable of contributing their own work must feel about their creations. {{pb}} I am also rather happy about how a situation which was brought up at my ORCP turned out. I had been involved with mediating between some newish editors who have very strong POV on the ethnicity of certain historical Islamic figures – starting at [[Mubariz al-Din Muhammad]]. There was drama and edit warring coming from both sides and it would be very easy to discount the editors as straight out POV warriors but after engaging I could see the point being made – argumentatively made but valid nonetheless. One of the editors on the side of the dispute which I did not agree later opened [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive980#Article_about_Hookah_and_sources a complaint at ANI] on another matter and was rapidly mobbed by a group of editors who have since been topic banned as a group from the related area in part for similar battleground and mobbing behavior [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive232#Capitals00]. They had turned a reasonable complaint into a boomerang calling for an indefinite block for the editor who had opened the complaint. The whole thing was a shameful abuse of our conflict management processes and was characterized as an {{tq|"uncharacteristically vicious discussion"}} and a {{tq|"pile on"}} by {{noping|Seraphim System}}<sup>{{tl|noping}}</sup>. {{pb}} {{noping|Farawahar}}<sup>{{tl|noping}}</sup> had some behavioral issues but but she is a good faith editor, maybe a bit disruptive at times but far less than many in that area and willing to learn, and that, in my mind, coordinated and vicious mobbing is something we should be ashamed of. I encountered her again at [[Talk:Jabir ibn Hayyan]] afterwords and, while she was still pressing her POV, she was a constructive editor and she is still contributing to Wikipedia. I believe that I prevented the loss of an editor and maybe helped make the editing environment less threatening by showing ''someone'' will step in even if that someone does not always agree with her. {{pb}} Editors are not perfect and most people who come here do so because they want to edit about something they are passionate about. In some areas those passions are often quite strong and in opposition to someone just as passionate about ''their'' truth. Some will adapt to Wikipedia's editing expectations, some will not and some will become disruptive pests who make everyone else miserable. It is important to recognize and support those who can learn to participate here. We even have a policy, [[WP:AGF]], which directs us to do so. It is also important to expeditiously remove those who are being repeatedly disruptive from the environment they are disruptive. Regrettably, except in clear cut cases, we have no policy for that. We do not even have a solid consensus on how to go about it. I am pleased with those times my contributions at ''"the drama boards"'' helped resolve individual cases one way or the other and, whether and administrator or not, I hope my future contributions aid in resolving future issues with as little trauma as possible for all involved. |
|||
::'''A:''' |
|||
:'''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? |
:'''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:''' Very early in my editing here I unwitting stepped into what is now ''American Politics 2''. Which crystallized around [[Project for the New American Century]] and my naive attempt to find a compromise which resulted in [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of PNAC Members associated with the Administration of George W. Bush]]|. My first and only ANI report was shut down rather rudely and three months into my editing here I found myself a named participant in [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others|Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others]]. This experience got me very interested in conflict management on Wikipedia ''very'' early in my editing career. {{pb}} I learned how it feels to be passionately involved in an intractable conflict where the other parties "just don't understand!" – at least from my perspective {{smiley}} On reflection I also learned no matter how fervently I believe a policy should be applied one way there can be equally or even more valid or accepted arguments to the contrary. In this particular case, were I examining the above AfD and based on several more years experience, I would agree with the delete !voters. {{pb}} As to how this affected how I handle editing conflicts now – I make sure to argue the opposing side, at least to myself, just as hard as I argue my position. When/if I convince myself of a differing position I change my mind and admit it in the discussion. I think this is most apparent in my AfD nominations. If I miss something or someone makes a point I did not consider I withdraw the nomination of change my !vote. In most cases at AfD this is as a of finding foreign language sources but in one recent case, [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Umar haque|Articles for deletion/Umar haque]], it was possible, by looking for arguments ''against'' my position to help with the compromise which resulted in [[2018 London "army of children" plot]]. {{pb}} Finally, as to stress management; not much gets to me for more than a little bit. When I am annoyed I usually spend quite a bit of time using the ''Show preview'' to my response has been appropriate and well crafted. I disengage and go do something else ''long'' before I get to the point of telling someone to "f--k off". Beyond that, I am ''very'' used to separating my personal ideas from the policy/rules I am working under/enforcing; my feelings/opinions from my actions and recognizing when that is either not possible or gives a reasonable appearance of not being possible. |
|||
::'''A:''' |
|||
:'''4.''' The issue of my break in 2017 came up several times at [[WP:ORCP]] so I will give the answer here which I gave there:<blockquote> I fence with [[Feder (fencing)|big, heavy swords]] and injured/re-injured myself a few times.The last was pretty serious and really took the wind out of my sails. I'm still doing PT but I have been able to concentrate much better over the last several months and am generally back to where I was at the beginning of last year. That said, I completely understand why people would worry about the editing gap. All I can really say is I have no plans to drop off the face of the Earth but I do sometimes push my training a bit harder than is wise which can put me out of commission for a few weeks now and then – I'm pretty heavily motivated to avoid that happening though {{smiley}}</blockquote> |
|||
---- |
---- |
||
<span style="font-size:110%">You may ask optional questions below. There is a [[Wikipedia:2015_administrator_election_reform/Phase_II/RfC#B2:_Limit_the_total_number_of_questions_that_may_be_asked_by_any_individual_editor|limit]] of '''two questions''' per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.</span> |
<span style="font-size:110%">You may ask optional questions below. There is a [[Wikipedia:2015_administrator_election_reform/Phase_II/RfC#B2:_Limit_the_total_number_of_questions_that_may_be_asked_by_any_individual_editor|limit]] of '''two questions''' per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.</span> |
Revision as of 21:22, 25 July 2018
Jbhunley
(talk page)
(?/?/?); Scheduled to end You're almost there. All you need to do now is substitute the time parser function (it isn't as scary as it sounds, edit the page and inline comments will guide you). This will generate a fixed end time. Remove the <!--
and -->
around subst:
in the template (as well as this comment) once you transclude this request.
Nomination
Jbhunley (talk · contribs) – I've expressed interest in Jbhunley (JBH) running an RfA for about a year. He's been around for about 8 years but really taken an interest in the back-end of things in the last three. He's a regular at New Page Patrol and has contributed substantially to the direction of that project, including essays such as User:Jbhunley/Essays/Identifying nonsense at NPP. While he's not a major content creator, he has created a number of perfectly fine short articles such as Innocenzo Leonelli and cleaned up Uebert Angel to avoid the threat of deletion. He has said that the experience has taught him exactly what sort of empathy adminstrators should have towards those who write the encyclopedia.
JBH has contributed significantly to the debates at ANI; don't let alarm bells ring about that, because when he contributes there, he keeps an eye on closing discussion down in an amicable manner that can satisfy everyone. He always talks a good argument at AfD; even when the result doesn't match his !vote, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suzanne Olsson (3rd nomination), he stated his view eloquently and also pointed out he would respect the consensus. Or at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orly Sade, he clearly shows he gave WP:BEFORE a good go, and withdrew the AfD as soon as somebody managed to get a more positive search result. The main point I take away from these is that JBH's communication is excellent, and that's a major requirement for an administrator. He has it in spades. I hope you agree. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:13, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Co-nomination by Alex Shih
It is my honour to co-nominate Jbhunley (Jbh) for adminship, and to supplement Ritchie333's statement above. Jbh has been registered since 2010 and started editing actively in 2015. Before their temporary break from editing in April 2017 due to injuries and real life commitments that followed, their invaluable contributions to WP:NPR has significant impact that led to the success of WP:ACTRIAL. While Jbh is not a content editor, they have the resources and are capable of well-researched writing. It may appear that they spend considerable amount of time at various noticeboards. But I am confident to say that Jbh has never been guilty of drive-by commenting, something that is the main contributing factor to the toxic atmosphere of these noticeboards. A random sample of three diffs ([1] [2] [3]) can serve as examples of Jbh's commenting style, which are thoughtful and sensible, also with knowledge and insight that helps to bridge opposing sides and bring the discussions to an end. This is consistent with Jbh's contributions and excellent style of communication across other areas of the project.
While I have always seen Jbh's name around, I think the first personal encounter was when I was pinged for input over an aspect of the RfC they were drafting. When I pinged them out of the blue to ask for their assistance over another RfC, their response was incredibly constructive and helpful, far beyond the expectations for someone unfamiliar with the subject (DYK). I was really surprised actually, because I mostly work in DYK, and yet the observation about DYK made by Jbh was so on point that I did not have much further to add. Even by this observation alone, I think Jbh will be a good, if not model, administrator that presumably many of us are all looking for, which is being intelligent and kind. Please let them help us. Alex Shih (talk) 04:44, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
- A: First off, I actually like back-end maintenance so I will likely do work in clearing CSD and closing AfD. I believe my record demonstrates that I have a good grasp of Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Since I have not done many other administrative functions, I do not know what I will enjoy and be good at. Whatever areas I work in I will approach with care. As can be seen on the pages linked from my work space when I was learning CSD I would annotate the log to keep track of why something was declined so I could learn the difference between what I thought was appropriate tagging and the consensus view. I stopped annotation long ago but I pay attention to any declines and I still keep track of my AfD nominations so I will know why I was wrong or what I missed that led me to withdraw a nomination. Beyond the basic maintenance, and I recognize saying this may cause reticence in some editors, I am interested in working in conflict management. That means the sensitive areas like AE and ANI. How behavioral issues are managed or resolved pretty much defines the editing environment and I believe I can make a positive contribution there. I have complained about administrators making bad calls or mishandling a conflict. I bet we all have but most of us do not really have a 'boots on the ground' understanding of making those calls. I intend to get that experience and understanding and then see if I can help improve things. I know this is not an area to go charging into making rash decisions. I know it requires care, a bit of empathy and respect for community norms and that is how I will approach it.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: Well, I am pretty proud of User:Jbhunley/sandbox/Ignatius of Jesus. It is not finished and may not be by the time this RfA starts but I have enjoyed working on it immensely and it gives me a glimpse of what those editors who are capable of contributing their own work must feel about their creations. I am also rather happy about how a situation which was brought up at my ORCP turned out. I had been involved with mediating between some newish editors who have very strong POV on the ethnicity of certain historical Islamic figures – starting at Mubariz al-Din Muhammad. There was drama and edit warring coming from both sides and it would be very easy to discount the editors as straight out POV warriors but after engaging I could see the point being made – argumentatively made but valid nonetheless. One of the editors on the side of the dispute which I did not agree later opened a complaint at ANI on another matter and was rapidly mobbed by a group of editors who have since been topic banned as a group from the related area in part for similar battleground and mobbing behavior [4]. They had turned a reasonable complaint into a boomerang calling for an indefinite block for the editor who had opened the complaint. The whole thing was a shameful abuse of our conflict management processes and was characterized as an
"uncharacteristically vicious discussion"
and a"pile on"
by Seraphim System{{noping}}. Farawahar{{noping}} had some behavioral issues but but she is a good faith editor, maybe a bit disruptive at times but far less than many in that area and willing to learn, and that, in my mind, coordinated and vicious mobbing is something we should be ashamed of. I encountered her again at Talk:Jabir ibn Hayyan afterwords and, while she was still pressing her POV, she was a constructive editor and she is still contributing to Wikipedia. I believe that I prevented the loss of an editor and maybe helped make the editing environment less threatening by showing someone will step in even if that someone does not always agree with her. Editors are not perfect and most people who come here do so because they want to edit about something they are passionate about. In some areas those passions are often quite strong and in opposition to someone just as passionate about their truth. Some will adapt to Wikipedia's editing expectations, some will not and some will become disruptive pests who make everyone else miserable. It is important to recognize and support those who can learn to participate here. We even have a policy, WP:AGF, which directs us to do so. It is also important to expeditiously remove those who are being repeatedly disruptive from the environment they are disruptive. Regrettably, except in clear cut cases, we have no policy for that. We do not even have a solid consensus on how to go about it. I am pleased with those times my contributions at "the drama boards" helped resolve individual cases one way or the other and, whether and administrator or not, I hope my future contributions aid in resolving future issues with as little trauma as possible for all involved.
- A: Well, I am pretty proud of User:Jbhunley/sandbox/Ignatius of Jesus. It is not finished and may not be by the time this RfA starts but I have enjoyed working on it immensely and it gives me a glimpse of what those editors who are capable of contributing their own work must feel about their creations. I am also rather happy about how a situation which was brought up at my ORCP turned out. I had been involved with mediating between some newish editors who have very strong POV on the ethnicity of certain historical Islamic figures – starting at Mubariz al-Din Muhammad. There was drama and edit warring coming from both sides and it would be very easy to discount the editors as straight out POV warriors but after engaging I could see the point being made – argumentatively made but valid nonetheless. One of the editors on the side of the dispute which I did not agree later opened a complaint at ANI on another matter and was rapidly mobbed by a group of editors who have since been topic banned as a group from the related area in part for similar battleground and mobbing behavior [4]. They had turned a reasonable complaint into a boomerang calling for an indefinite block for the editor who had opened the complaint. The whole thing was a shameful abuse of our conflict management processes and was characterized as an
- 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: Very early in my editing here I unwitting stepped into what is now American Politics 2. Which crystallized around Project for the New American Century and my naive attempt to find a compromise which resulted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of PNAC Members associated with the Administration of George W. Bush|. My first and only ANI report was shut down rather rudely and three months into my editing here I found myself a named participant in Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others. This experience got me very interested in conflict management on Wikipedia very early in my editing career. I learned how it feels to be passionately involved in an intractable conflict where the other parties "just don't understand!" – at least from my perspective On reflection I also learned no matter how fervently I believe a policy should be applied one way there can be equally or even more valid or accepted arguments to the contrary. In this particular case, were I examining the above AfD and based on several more years experience, I would agree with the delete !voters. As to how this affected how I handle editing conflicts now – I make sure to argue the opposing side, at least to myself, just as hard as I argue my position. When/if I convince myself of a differing position I change my mind and admit it in the discussion. I think this is most apparent in my AfD nominations. If I miss something or someone makes a point I did not consider I withdraw the nomination of change my !vote. In most cases at AfD this is as a of finding foreign language sources but in one recent case, Articles for deletion/Umar haque, it was possible, by looking for arguments against my position to help with the compromise which resulted in 2018 London "army of children" plot. Finally, as to stress management; not much gets to me for more than a little bit. When I am annoyed I usually spend quite a bit of time using the Show preview to my response has been appropriate and well crafted. I disengage and go do something else long before I get to the point of telling someone to "f--k off". Beyond that, I am very used to separating my personal ideas from the policy/rules I am working under/enforcing; my feelings/opinions from my actions and recognizing when that is either not possible or gives a reasonable appearance of not being possible.
- 4. The issue of my break in 2017 came up several times at WP:ORCP so I will give the answer here which I gave there:
I fence with big, heavy swords and injured/re-injured myself a few times.The last was pretty serious and really took the wind out of my sails. I'm still doing PT but I have been able to concentrate much better over the last several months and am generally back to where I was at the beginning of last year. That said, I completely understand why people would worry about the editing gap. All I can really say is I have no plans to drop off the face of the Earth but I do sometimes push my training a bit harder than is wise which can put me out of commission for a few weeks now and then – I'm pretty heavily motivated to avoid that happening though
You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.
Discussion
- Links for Jbhunley: Jbhunley (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- Edit summary usage for Jbhunley can be found here.
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.
Support
Oppose
Neutral
General comments