→Jouster: update count |
The consensus guidelines for articles might not apply to this sort of thing, but I can see when I've been outvoted. Removing humor as it's detracting from the conversation. |
||
Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
::'''A:''' Absolutely. Heat builds up as a result of friction whenever two parts of a machine touch one another; the same is true of people working on an encyclopedia. I'd love to say that I've invariably handled myself with grace and aplomb, but instead I can only say that I've done what I thought was right at the time, and I've been very careful to go back and make corrective edits (<s>) or otherwise clarify my intentions (or clarify my understanding of policy) whenever possible. Have I toed the line or stepped over it in one or two cases? Sure. But I work on contentious issues, contentious pages, and with strong-willed fellow Wikipedians. Every edit I've made has been better than my last, and I've never even been so much as ''accused'' of edit-warring. Here's the take-away about me when it comes to my interactions with difficult users and difficult situations: '''If my Talk page rhetoric should get heated, it's in the pursuit of a better article and a better Project, and it's because I believe a 24kb talk page so we can have a perfect 2kb article is the essence of Wikipedia, whereas sniping at one another in edit summaries is certainly not.''' |
::'''A:''' Absolutely. Heat builds up as a result of friction whenever two parts of a machine touch one another; the same is true of people working on an encyclopedia. I'd love to say that I've invariably handled myself with grace and aplomb, but instead I can only say that I've done what I thought was right at the time, and I've been very careful to go back and make corrective edits (<s>) or otherwise clarify my intentions (or clarify my understanding of policy) whenever possible. Have I toed the line or stepped over it in one or two cases? Sure. But I work on contentious issues, contentious pages, and with strong-willed fellow Wikipedians. Every edit I've made has been better than my last, and I've never even been so much as ''accused'' of edit-warring. Here's the take-away about me when it comes to my interactions with difficult users and difficult situations: '''If my Talk page rhetoric should get heated, it's in the pursuit of a better article and a better Project, and it's because I believe a 24kb talk page so we can have a perfect 2kb article is the essence of Wikipedia, whereas sniping at one another in edit summaries is certainly not.''' |
||
:'''4.''' You don't participate at [[WT:RFA]], you can't name the categories of [[WP:CSD]], you show no appreciation of [[WP:BLOCK|blocking policy]] |
:'''4.''' You don't participate at [[WT:RFA]], you can't name the categories of [[WP:CSD]], and you show no appreciation of [[WP:BLOCK|blocking policy]]. Why in the world would I trust you with admin tools? (asked by Jouster) |
||
::'''A:''' |
::'''A:''' You should trust me with administrator tools because I won't use them. Confused? Read on. |
||
::I will flatly state the following: |
::I will flatly state the following: |
Revision as of 20:24, 27 February 2008
Jouster
(talk page) (1/6/0); Scheduled to end 17:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Jouster (talk · contribs) - Jouster (that's me) has been an editor of the 'pedia since April 2003. My User ID is 10391; back in mah day, we all actually did {{User typewriter2}}, and we had to walk uphill to the database server, both ways, in the snow, barefoot. And it was a Commodore 64.
Back on a serious note, I'm applying to adminship per WP:DEAL, and with some very, very specific caveats, listed in my responses to questions #1 and #4. You can read more about me here and you can get some idea of my approach to communication and conflict resolution over here. Jouster (whisper) 18:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate
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 admin work do you intend to take part in?
- A: Broadly, only {{editprotected}} requests and WP:SNOW. See my answer to Question #4, below.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: I am immensely proud of accomplishments like User_talk:Jouster#Yep.2C_it_was_just_miscommunications. The original situation was fast devolving into a likely long-term block. Both parties were talking past each other. I stepped in, evaluated the evidence on both sides, and wrote an opinion that the user was being misunderstood. User:The Transhumanist (a spectacular asset to the Encyclopedia) then stepped up and offered to mentor the "problem" user. That "problem" user, fast on the track to throwing up his hands in disgust with the whole Wikipedia process, now has nearly 12,000 edits.
- 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: Absolutely. Heat builds up as a result of friction whenever two parts of a machine touch one another; the same is true of people working on an encyclopedia. I'd love to say that I've invariably handled myself with grace and aplomb, but instead I can only say that I've done what I thought was right at the time, and I've been very careful to go back and make corrective edits (<s>) or otherwise clarify my intentions (or clarify my understanding of policy) whenever possible. Have I toed the line or stepped over it in one or two cases? Sure. But I work on contentious issues, contentious pages, and with strong-willed fellow Wikipedians. Every edit I've made has been better than my last, and I've never even been so much as accused of edit-warring. Here's the take-away about me when it comes to my interactions with difficult users and difficult situations: If my Talk page rhetoric should get heated, it's in the pursuit of a better article and a better Project, and it's because I believe a 24kb talk page so we can have a perfect 2kb article is the essence of Wikipedia, whereas sniping at one another in edit summaries is certainly not.
- 4. You don't participate at WT:RFA, you can't name the categories of WP:CSD, and you show no appreciation of blocking policy. Why in the world would I trust you with admin tools? (asked by Jouster)
- A: You should trust me with administrator tools because I won't use them. Confused? Read on.
- I will flatly state the following:
- I will review and implement {{editprotected}} requests according to my best judgment, and only after a thorough review of article history.
- I will close WP:AFD, WP:MFD, etc., only in cases where the outcome is plainly obvious.
- I will not block for more than 60 minutes, I will only do so in circumstances where there is a clear and immediate danger represented by continued access by the user in question, and I will immediately appeal my own decision to AN/I for consideration by an administrator who can then apply a block of the correct length.
- I will use other administrative powers solely where WP:SNOW might apply, and only after having carefully examined appropriate policy pages to ensure that my reasoning is correct.
- In the event that I make a block or perform any other administrative action that is incorrect (i.e., is overturned), I will immediately cease use of administrator tools in that category until I have satisfied myself that I have a full understanding of the policies involved.
- I will list myself at WP:AOR, with the following requirements:
- Any two users in good standing (as determined by a reputable third party of my choosing) may request that I stand for re-confirmation. Any single administrator, bureaucrat, or user named "Jimbo Wales" may request that I stand for re-confirmation. Any ten users identified solely by IP addresses without a history of vandalism and with a non-trivial history of article contributions may request that I stand for re-confirmation as long as they are not in the same RIR-assigned netblock. Jouster (whisper) 18:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- I will flatly state the following:
- 5. (as always, all questions are optional) There are three main sorts of editprotected requests: adding interwikis/typo fixing/appearance tweaks to high-risk templates and interface messages, technical improvements to high-risk templates and interwikis, and edits to temporarily protected articles. Do you plan to work on all of these, or just some? Do you plan to use protect/unprotect on high-risk pages, or just editprotected? What is your technical knowledge of the MediaWiki namespace like (normally irrelevant for most admins, but a lot more important for administrators who want to work on editprotectededs)? --ais523 19:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Good questions! I intend to work on typo-fixing {{editprotected}}s and appearance tweaks, as I can verify myself that they are correct. I will add interwiki links only where I can verify that they are not attempts at vandalism (i.e., where I can confirm that someone isn't interwiki'ing phlogiston theory to the Russian vagina page). Technical improvements would be largely outside the scope of my expertise; though I am a competent programmer and I have made templates that accept parameters, the vagaries of the parser are not my forté. Edits to temporarily-protected articles most-closely mesh with my original statement regarding fulfillment of editprotected requests: namely, that I will perform them, but only after a thorough review of any cited sources and of the article history to ensure I am not perpetuating an edit war. I will not cancel edit requests, I will simply decline to service them, leaving a note as to why so the next administrator to come along can make a more-informed decision.
- Protecting pages is outside the scope of my self-assigned duties, barring WP:SNOW. Unprotection falls under the same category. I will perform neither barring overwhelming consensus that would be self-evident to any casual observer.
- My knowledge of the MediaWiki namespace is incomplete, but I'm not entirely a stranger to it. I do have bureaucrat-level access on another MediaWiki, used by a diverse (but controlled) group of people across the Internet and related to some work I'm doing at the moment, and I've had occasion to change one or two MediaWiki namespace items as part of that responsibility. I read the documentation twice before I change anything on that Wiki, and it's not even publicly-viewable. I cannot imagine a situation wherein I'd feel comfortable implementing an editrequest on a MediaWiki page here. Jouster (whisper) 20:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
General comments
- See Jouster's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.
- Links for Jouster: Jouster (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Jouster before commenting.
Discussion
Support
- Support. I wasn't around for this particular bit of "history" cited by R.Postelthwaite, but if M.Animum and Jouster have "kissed and made up", then I don't see the harm here. Length of time of service outweighs the admittedly low edit count over said time period and convinces me that this user will not misuse the extra admin buttons because I'm convinced he understands policy (how could you not after 4+ years?). Very explicitly states above what he will and will not be doing as an admin, and fortifies it with some of the most liberal CAT:AOR criteria that I've seen to be able to quickly remove the bit if needed. You have my support. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Much appreciated, though I'll point out that I made relatively-few edits during my early years. Still, you are correct that my understanding of policy is based on a long history of having read policies in depth, at length, and with a careful eye whenever they applied to a situation at hand; I am definitely of the "measure twice, cut once" school of thought. Thanks for inaugurating the "support" section! Jouster (whisper) 19:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support. (I was inclined towards this anyway when I asked Q5, but wanted to get a better idea of the situation.) I don't know how many admins frequently look at CAT:PER, but it often gets filled up with the non-technical requests that require a good understanding of how to handle edit warriors that are insisting 'zOMG WRONG VERSION!' (I mostly work on the technical and noncontroversial requests there, which were often backlogged at the time when I applied for adminship, but which have since got better, mostly due to the hard work of other administrators.) Requests to change something on a page protected due to edit warring have been known to mount up, and many admins (at least me, and probably many others) wouldn't have the skill or temperament to work on them. (The one time I tried, it lead to a minor controversy.) The risk of an abuse of administrator tools seems low; I have no reason to believe Jouster to be a POV-pusher, and with the bar for desysopping voluntarily set this low, and the self-restriction on the administrator tools to use, I don't think there's much other chance of causing long-term problems. If a user can demonstrate that it would be to the community's interest for them to become an administrator, that greatly inclines me to support, especially in a case like this where the risk of tool misuse is low. --ais523 20:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Oppose
- Very reluctant oppose – I’m sorry Jouster, you’re obviously dedicated but I can’t help but still be concerned about your harassment of Animum from July. Here and here are some of the threads you started on his talk page, not to mention a Village pump thread about it. You got warnings off me[1] and various other admins [2] which lead to a AN/I thread. I realise that this is a long time ago, but you have made less than 500 edits since then and I therefore do not believe sufficient editing time has passed to show there will not be a relapse of this behaviour in the future. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Magnus and I have since resolved our differences. Read what he wrote and my response. His words probably answer your concern more thoroughly than my own could. Jouster (whisper) 19:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- My issue isn't how this has now been resolved, it's how it was orignally handled. Animum may forgive you and feel he acted irrationally, but you had three neutral admins very much ready to block you and start an RfC over it - as I said, it's not the be all and end all, but I certainly would like to see more editing experience to show you really have got over it. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- You are entitled to your opinion and your vote. Thank you for explaining your concerns, but your suggested resolution (acquire more edits) is disingenuous given that the number of edits I've made since that time represent over half of my total edit count on the 'pedia. Furthermore, if your concern is that I might misuse administrator tools, I'll note that you, as an administrator, could, on your sole whim, recall me. Thus, your concern appears to come down to my character as an editor. Even if I were Willy on Wheels, if my only administrator actions were under WP:SNOW, why would that matter? I have a hard time imagining that you think I'm a "sleeper" vandal account, so what is your rationale? And, failing that I might convince you to change your vote, would you consider revising your suggested resolution to a more-achievable benchmark, given context of me as a low-edit-count editor working largely though enormous Talk page posts? It seems strange that, in order to satisfy your current request, I might apply for AWB solely to pump up my edit count a bit. Jouster (whisper) 19:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- My concern is that you will act like this with another editor and it will come with more teeth if you had the admin tools. I also wonder if you would use the tools in a similar incident in the future. My main reason for this oppose however is that the incident has seriously led me to question your judgement and temprement. I actually class what you did as quite a serious incident, and less than 500 edits is not enough evidence to show me you've changed. Of course, I'm not suggesting you start using automated tools, but real life time is no substitute for on-wiki evidence. Maybe you aren't the most prolific editor here, but that means you will have to work longer before I believe that an incident like the one I quote will not reoccur. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- You are entitled to your opinion and your vote. Thank you for explaining your concerns, but your suggested resolution (acquire more edits) is disingenuous given that the number of edits I've made since that time represent over half of my total edit count on the 'pedia. Furthermore, if your concern is that I might misuse administrator tools, I'll note that you, as an administrator, could, on your sole whim, recall me. Thus, your concern appears to come down to my character as an editor. Even if I were Willy on Wheels, if my only administrator actions were under WP:SNOW, why would that matter? I have a hard time imagining that you think I'm a "sleeper" vandal account, so what is your rationale? And, failing that I might convince you to change your vote, would you consider revising your suggested resolution to a more-achievable benchmark, given context of me as a low-edit-count editor working largely though enormous Talk page posts? It seems strange that, in order to satisfy your current request, I might apply for AWB solely to pump up my edit count a bit. Jouster (whisper) 19:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- My issue isn't how this has now been resolved, it's how it was orignally handled. Animum may forgive you and feel he acted irrationally, but you had three neutral admins very much ready to block you and start an RfC over it - as I said, it's not the be all and end all, but I certainly would like to see more editing experience to show you really have got over it. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Magnus and I have since resolved our differences. Read what he wrote and my response. His words probably answer your concern more thoroughly than my own could. Jouster (whisper) 19:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Strong oppose - I do not believe you are admin material, quite frankly. For one, you don't have nearly enough editing experience, nor is it very well-rounded. Secondly, you posed a question to yourself (#4), that by it's very tone, isn't very serious, which leads to my doubts as to how seriously you would handle admin functions. ArcAngel (talk) 19:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Please define "editing experience" in this context. I have significantly more non-minor, non-vandal-fighting article-space edits than other recent candidates. If you are counting edits, see WP:ITIS and note my comment, above; I refuse to acquire AWB usage with a primary goal of inflating my edit count. If you are counting longevity or quality as evidence of experience, on the other hand, I feel I've been misjudged and would appreciate your reasoning.
- As to attacking me over the tone of my question to myself, that's something of a low blow. I'm having fun editing the Project; there's little else that could have kept me around for five years. Think of it like a job interview—yes, I'll wear a suit and tie, but if I don't even crack a smile throughout the interview, you'd think I was a little unbalanced, no? I viewed it as a safe place to let a little of my flair show. If you don't like the question, edit it or add another; I don't WP:OWN anything on this page, and I give you specific and express permission to edit in good faith anything I've written above the !voting section. Jouster (whisper) 19:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Roughly 44% of your edits have been to talk pages - "edits" that really are of no significance when it comes to adminship, IMHO. 107 of your edits were in the 4 year period of 2003-2006 - not exactly prolific, nor sustained. Longevity does not equal experience - longevity+editing does - while you have one (longevity), you certainly have not acquired nearly enough editing experience at this point in time to hold an adminship. You need to be more rounded - learn WP inside/out, expand stubs, re-write articles to pass to GA status, revert vandals, report suspicious usernames - things of that nature. ArcAngel (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose – The first and main reason for my opinion to oppose is the lack of experience. You have just over 1,100 edits. Personally, nowhere near the amount of experience necessary to have the responsibility that comes along with the tools. Secondly, just read the question you yourself submitted as question 4. I am all for light heartiness, to a point and from my standpoint (pun intended) I believe you crossed that threshold. Are these concerns insurmountable, of course not! This brings me back to my original stance, just a lack of experience. Good Luck to you and with some more time here at Wikipedia would be happy to support next time around. Shoessss | Chat 19:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Lack of experience, too little edits. Get more experience and I will support in a few months. NHRHS2010 20:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Replying here, but it's to both NHRHS and Shoessss. I am a lensing editor; I may not make the edits by quantity, but my relatively-few, well-placed edits enable those who do. That I know of, I have contributed significantly to the ability of Noroton (nearly 30,000 edits) and User:Joseph A. Spadaro (a little under 12,000 edits) to continue editing on the Project. I have made significant progress with some people with whom I very strongly disagree, and in every dispute in which I've participated, regardless of whether I was a party or I stuck my nose in, the parties have come out the better for my involvement. So, fine, my edit count is a little low, but that's in part because I've gone out of my way not to inflate it by using edit previews, editing articles en bloc rather than section-by-section when making extensive changes, not using WP:AWB, etc. I am deeply disappointed by this focus on edit count; were I to point to my longevity on the project as the sole reason to support me, you would doubtless be very upset with me. I quote:
Unless you want to be an admin, nobody really cares how many edits you've made — and even then, it's really not quantity but quality.
- —WP:ITIS (my emphasis)
- Jouster (whisper) 20:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, but no. Even per my "specialist admin criteria," I would like to see more experience. Though my criteria are not as stringent as others, I would like to see more encyclopedia building and activity in admin areas. One needs to be more active in order to keep up with the community's view of consensus. Dlohcierekim 20:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - Can't do it in good conscience, sorry. You lack vital experience in the project - and your Q4 is, quite frankly, strange and frivolous. Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)