Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JDoorjam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

[edit] JDoorjam

final (55/1/2) ending 21:17 9 March 2006 (UTC)

JDoorjam (talk • contribs) – JDoorjam is an ideal candidate for adminship. Always helpful, JDoorjam's contributions to the colleges of the USA, especially the many articles on Cornell University are inspirational to Wikipedia users. I'd also like to point to JDoorjam's membership of Esperanza as a sign of JDoorjam's commitment to wikipedia. I am honoured to nominate JDoorjam for adminship. The Halo 21:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I humbly accept -- thank you! JDoorjam Talk 21:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Support

1. Super Strong Support As per nomination. The Halo 21:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
2. Super Strong Supprt During the userbox war, he made considerate, mature, well-thought out comments that weren't devisive. He tells it like it is without offending anyone. I support him strongly. --D-Day ^{My fan mail. Click to view my evil userboxes} 22:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
3. Support per above. --Cymsdale 22:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
4. Support per D-Day. As a sidenote, we could all do well to consider this. Mackensen (talk) 22:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
5. Support, slight worry about experience but not enough to put me off. Stifle 22:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
6. Support Excellent user, great potential. Good luck! gidonb 00:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
7. Support--Jusjih 01:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
8. --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
9. Support. If he can navigate the userbox war without pissing people off, he can handle anything. -- Jbamb 04:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
10. Support. Good people/communication skills. Good at de-escalating conflict. Remains calm under fire.Mikereichold 05:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
11. Support has shown great maturity. DaGizza^{Chat ©} 06:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
12. Support Joe I 06:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
13. Support Solid candidate, good stats, seems responsible Celcius
14. Support I though that he was an admin already...oh well.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 08:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
15. Support A solid user. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 08:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
16. Support Naconkantari e|t||c|m 12:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
17. Supportalways support a fellow Esperanzian :-) Gryffindor 14:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

    Always...??? Mwahahaha!!! Okay, sorry for that, I just couldn't resist. My apologies to Jdoorjam for mucking up his nom. I shan't let it happen again. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

18. Support --Terence Ong 14:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
19. Support. Will make a great admin. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 17:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
20. Support --Xtreambar 17:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
21. Support Mjal 21:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
22. Support --Latinus 23:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
23. Support Need more admins, plenty of work to do. Haukur 23:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
24. Support Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
25. Support see no reason to oppose.--MONGO 03:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
26. Support. --Khoikhoi 04:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
27. Makes sense when I come across his posts, even if I sometimes disagree with them. Has shown level-headedness that should be typical of admins. Johnleemk | Talk 10:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
28. Support good editor --rogerd 11:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
29. Support, no reason not to. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 12:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
30. Support. Looks good. Flowerparty■ 13:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
31. Support, looks good. Essexmutant 13:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
32. Support as per nom. --Tone 13:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
33. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 13:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
34. Support. A good, level-headed editor. I've had nothing but a good experience with this editor. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 15:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
35. Support Prodego ^talk 15:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
36. Robert 19:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
37. Support level-headed attitude to the biggest flame war Wikipedia has seen = would make good admin Cynical 20:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
38. Support. Very nice and sensible user. Raven4x4x 06:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
39. Support. Generally very sensible and constructive. btm _talk 08:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
40. Support: --Bhadani 08:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
41. Support. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 19:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
42. Support. — FireFox • T • 21:34, 5 March 2006
43. Support --Ugur Basak 10:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
44. Support. Good and responsible contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
45. Support Septentrionalis 17:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
46. Support --Jay(Reply) 22:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
47. Support. Edits look reasonable, see no reason for concern. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
48. Support Civil head, even in uncivil conditions. Staxringold 22:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
49. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 23:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
50. Support.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 14:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
51. User:Go for it!/Vote Support Has a lot to learn, but don't we all. Heart is in the right place, and is intelligent to boot. I believe JDoorjam will tackle the admin learning curve with gusto. Will make a fine admin. --Go for it! 16:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
52. Support. Good attitude and very helpful. Gflores ^Talk 22:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
53. Support what more is there to say? Plenty. He's done work in articles, (check that off), dirty work (check that off) and works out in the community (check that off). Long story short, but I have a small issue with the little anti-support ballot. It just stinks. --Rob from NY 01:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
54. Support, looks OK. JIP | Talk 06:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
55. Support, I'm familiar with some good work he's done. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

• Reluctant oppose. "If I found out that an editor is using sockpuppets, I would block the sockpuppets." This is against policy and shows that you didn't read the question. Like many editors, I've used sockpuppets, but not for abusive or destructive reasons, and I'd hate to have them banned by a trigger-happy admin.Grace Note 21:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

With respect, the question explicitly stated the sockpuppets were being used abusively, which I took to mean that the puppets were being used to violate policies, perhaps blatantly. I completely understand that some editors use sock puppets for various legitimate reasons, and no, I absolutely would not knee-jerk block such accounts. JDoorjam Talk 23:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

1. oppose. vandalism is no reason to request adminship. you can revert without the revert button. ... aa:talk 21:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

   And with popups, reverting is a snap! However, I went on to say that it would be good to be able to stop serial vandals, rather than chasing them with a mop, and that I would also do such chores as closing out AfDs and {{prod}}s, which I can't currently do, of course. It'd be nice to fix protected pages, too, which I should have mentioned below; for instance, there's a redir in {{band-stub}} that I'd love to have go straight to the project page. Regards, JDoorjam Talk 21:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral I would vote support but most of his Wikipedia space edits are deletion votes and conversation. And also, he has been here since July 2005 but I'm not sure if he's knowledgeable of policies. Moe ε 22:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
2. Neutral. leaning towards.... pschemp | talk 05:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• Edit summary usage: 98% for major edits and 99% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 22:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• See JDoorjam's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A. I already have a list of often-targeted pages that I try to keep clear of vandalism: political figures, a few celebrities, but also Archimedes, which for some reason gets vandalized pretty frequently. It would be nice not having to run to admins like User:JzG, who's obliged me a couple times, to get them to block rampaging vandals. I could also see myself closing out AfDs. I did a good amount of AfDing a few months back and got a good idea how the process works. I could see myself cleaning up old {{prod}}ded articles too.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A. My big side project has been the de-peacock-feathering of college and university pages on Wikipedia. I learned a lot, not only about bringing an article to NPOV, but also how to work towards compromising with other editors, because obviously college pages are going to be sources of pride for editors, and it's sometimes a challenge explaining that an article is improved by paring down boosterism. (I should thank User:Dpbsmith for getting me interested in that task.) Over the past few months I think I've managed to do a modicum of good for those pages in that regard (and giving them a good copyedit scrub, too, while I was at it).

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A. The biggest, silliest conflict I can remember getting into was with User:Uris over the U.Va. page. I was trying to de-peacock the page, he was counter-arguing about the notability of the content, and it devolved for a about half an hour into rapidfire editing on both sides... Uris is a good editor and I should have taken a step back, gone to the talk page, discussed things, explained my concerns, listened to him.... It taught me a lot about assuming good faith, which is, among other things, a good way to avoid WikiStress. In the end, nearly everybody (except the vandals mentioned in #1...) is here just to help.

Questions from NSLE:
The following are hypothetical situations you might find yourself in. I'd like to know how you'd react, as this may sway my vote. There is no need to answer these questions if you don't feel like it, that's fine with me, (especially if I've already supported you ;)).

1. You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?

   A. If I found out that an editor is using sockpuppets abusively, I would block the sockpuppets. I would remind the user that they are (most likely) well-known and liked for a reason: that they've earned the trust of the community, and that they risk losing that trust if they engage in abusive activities they know to be blatantly against policy that make it nearly impossible to assume good faith. (Clarified per comment to Grace Note, above)

2. While speedying articles/clearing a backlog at CAT:CSD, you come across an article that many users agree is patent nonsense. A small minority, of, say, three or four disagree. Upon looking the article over, you side with the minority and feel that the article is salvagable. Another admin then speedies it while you are making your decision. What would you do?

   A. If an article that has merit is getting deleted as "patent nonsense", it should be pretty easy to convince people that it's salvageable content. I mean, it has to be incoherent to qualify under this heading. If I decide that the content is repairable, I would leave the admin who speedied it a message saying I planned on trying to repair the article, and would then redraft it so that it's clearly not patent nonsense. (Again, this would be harder if the hypothetical were about, say, notability, but it's not, so... swish!)

3. You speedy a few articles. An anon keeps recreating them, and you re-speedy them. After dropping a note on their talk page, they vandalise your user page and make incivil comments. You realise they've been blocked before. What would you do? Would you block them, or respect that you have a conflict of interest?

   A. Yes, I would probably block them. If the pages are clearly not appropriate for an encyclopedia (gibberish, attack pages, blatant hoaxes), I would keep them deleted. If I thought there was maybe some argument about notability and that perhaps I was missing something about the encyclopedia-worthiness of the content, I would ask another admin to review them to make sure I was on the right track.

The above 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.