View text source at Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GeeJo

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

GeeJo

[edit]

Final (46/0/0) Ended Thu, 2 Nov 2006 14:14:42 UTC

GeeJo (talk · contribs) – I've been working on Wikipedia for over a year now, racking up over 12,000 edits (EDIT: Interiot's JS tool tells me I've just breached 13k :) ), and haven't really felt the need for admin tools 'til recently. I've worked across a wide range of projects and namespaces, mostly in areas where there was no real need for fast admin intervention, such as Stub sorting and Image tagging. I'm applying now not out of any need for recognition or power, but because when I do come across a problem or task requiring an admin, it'd be handy to be able to do so myself rather than add a notice to the page and wait for a response. I'm after the mop and nothing more :) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 10:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Self-nomination, acceptance implicit. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 11:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I've spent a lot of time flitting around Template talk:Did you know, with around 15 nominations to my name and a lot of work fixing or rewording the prose of others' noms. I'd gladly welcome the opportunity to begin updating the template itself when it's overdue (at the moment, gaps of 15-30 hours aren't uncommon over the weekend.) While I've not spent a great deal of time assisting with RC or AFD, which will probably not change in the near future (though I would in all likelyhood start working on keeping Category:Candidates for speedy deletion empty), I have a lot of experience working with Image tagging, and I'd be more than happy to start actually emptying out {{NowCommons}} and {{Redundant}} rather than adding to the list by tagging images for some other poor admin to revisit.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Article-wise, my favourite contributions have to have been contractum trinius, forest swastika, and Panjandrum. While each of them has its own problems, I'm fully confident that these incredibly obscure topics would never have gained a place in Wikipedia had I not created them myself, which made them all the more fun to work on. I'm also happy with the work I've done outside of article creation, such as sorting through the 25-page monstrosity that was Category:Mythology stubs last year by hand (I hadn't found AWB back then,) solo!
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: My editing tendencies have generally kept me out of the centre of controversies, but from time to time a topic has proven contentious. For example, my first few non-stub articles were on various anabolic steroids. Since their creation it's been an on-and-off battle trying to keep ad-spam and unlicensed product images out, and I've been accused more than once of being anti-drug. When presented with specific problems, I attempted to help users find a way to rework their contributions in such a way as to be acceptable (for example, helping them figure out what was needed for a good Fair Use image rationale.)

Question from Malber (talk · contribs)

4. What do the policy of WP:IAR and the essay WP:SNOW mean to you and how would you apply them?
A: IAR is a very handy safety valve, but should be used rarely and only with extreme caution. As a general rule, if someone – especially an admin – chooses to use it then they should be willing to back it up with rational argument and be willing to compromise. Outside of a Foundation decision, it should never be used to go against a clear informed consensus. WP:SNOW deals with a specific sub-section of IAR, and is probably one of the few uncontroversial (in my opinion, anyway) areas where the policy can be applied. If consensus is established without doubt then a process can be ended prematurely. When operating outside of an area where consensus has been established (Speedy deletion for example), then only in absolute clear-cut situations can the snowball clause be put into effect. If anyone (in virtually every case, even the author) raises a cogent argument against a speedy deletion, consensus should be sought through the normal process. To prevent bias, someone else should be responsible for invoking the first part of the snowball clause should consensus be established early in such a case.
5. Is there ever a case where a punitive block should be applied?
EDIT: my previous response to this question was made under a false assumption, which has been clarified in talk pages.
A: I can't think of a single instance in which a block for punishment's sake would be warranted. the blocking policy is very thorough, and outlines exactly what should be considered a blocking offense. There's no need to step outside of it, and if the boundaries around an action are fuzzy, either the benefit of the doubt should be given to the person in question or consensus in the form of a request on the administrators noticeboard should be sought.
I'm sorry, I'm not following your answer here.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 11:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. What criteria do you use to determine whether or not a business article should be deleted under CSD:G11?
A: There's a simple checklist to run down in such cases: Tone, length, formatting, references. All of them can be checked quickly by just reading the article. From there, a bit of common sense is required. A good rule of thumb is "Would someone wanting to rewrite the article be able to use any of the material here?" If the information is there, but just needs either rewording, cropping/expanding, formatting, or referencing then the relevant cleanup tag should be added. If it needs significantly more work – to the point where an editor would be better off creating an article from scratch – then deletion would probably be warranted.

Question from Jeff503 (talk · contribs)

7 How would you, if promoted, help new users learn the basics of Wikipedia easier?
I rarely come into contact with new users directly, though I do pop onto the Help Desk every now and then. Beyond adding welcome templates to new users I see contributing to Special:Newpages, I generally aim to help with any issues that are brought to my attention, either by a comment on my talk page or that of an article I'm keeping an eye on. I don't forsee my habits changing dramatically if I'm promoted.

Question from Richardshusr (talk · contribs)

8a Regarding your comment on Jusjih's recent RFA, why do you believe "admins should be aware of Chinese law when making decisions on the Chinese Wikipedia as per your example, just as I'd expect editors of the English-language Wikipedia to have at least a basic awareness of what is appropriate under US/EU/AUS law"? Is it your sense that the English Wikipedia is subject to US/EU/AUS law? How about Canadian and New Zealand law? Is the Chinese Wikipedia subject to Chinese law? Is the Spanish Wikipedia subject to Spanish/Mexican/et al law?
To bring this into context, Jusjih had commented that he wished to be able to delete offensive usernames from the Chinese equivalent of Special:User list. As Chinese law is particularly draconian in this regard, and given the PRC's view towards internet use, it is not out of the question (though unlikely) that they could request a Checkuser against these users in order to pursue legal action. This is a prefect example of why knowledge of local laws is a very handy, though not requisite, thing to have when working on an international project such as Wikipedia. It's not a question of WP being required to follow EU/AUS law (The English-language project technically need only observe U.S. Federal and Florida State laws, since this is where the servers are physically based,) its simply that having background knowledge in such an area can only serve to help.
8b Assuming the answer to the rhetorical questions in (7a) is "Yes", do you believe that the English Wikipedia is subject to German law? Why or why not?
Wikipedia itself is not subject to German law, though its contributors may be. As I've answered above, the English-language Wikipedia is only required to follow U.S. law, as this is where the servers are physically based. The project's contributors, however, are required to follow local laws. Despite this, it's still common courtesy to observe German law when working on a related article, provided that doing so will not hurt an article.
General comments

GeeJo's editcount summary stats as of 12:46, October 26 2006, using Interiot's tool. (aeropagitica) 12:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

For the answer to Q8a for better clarification, I never said deleting offensive usernames. I said that if a new function were to be enabled, making permanently blocked offensive usernames visible to admins only may be desirable. (Why show them to the public to give Chinese Wikipedia and Chinese Wiktionary bad images even if there is nothing illegal?) I never said that Chinese Wikipedia would be automatically subject to Chinese laws, but users from Red China are. I also support the answer to 8b while German Wikipedia has voted against fair use images while doing so is generally no good for most of its contributors.--Jusjih 18:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Yay, first support! --¿¡Exir Kamalabadi?!Join Esperanza! 11:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Looks like a good contributor in all relevent areas of WP; well-written nom, too. I don't think that the tools would be abused. (aeropagitica) 12:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Michael 14:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Come back when you have 20,000 edits. Strong support. Good contributions and good answers above. Jcam 15:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - per experience and extensive upload log --T-rex 16:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment And those are just the ones on Wikipedia. I've uploaded far more over on Commons :) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 17:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently GeeJo is responsible for 60% of the images on wikipedia... --T-rex 22:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Strong Support a very good editor and a very positive nomination. Rama's arrow 18:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support (...he's not already?) --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 19:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Some good contribs in DYK and excellent user page by the way --Ageo020 (Talk • Contribs) 20:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong support High upload and edit count, as well as great answers to the questions. 0L1 Talk Contribs 20:45 26 10 2006 (UTC)
  10. Supporting a Good Editor  Doctor Bruno  20:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Mike | Trick or Treat 20:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support the amount of hard work this user is able to generate in such a short time amazes me. KazakhPol 22:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support seems to be an excellent candidate who has shown quite a commendable dedication to the project. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 23:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support per above answers, is also a prolific contributor in writing articles and the improvements of them. see: User:GeeJo/Gallery User:GeeJo/DYK :GeeJo also participates at the Wikipedia Reference desk. [1] ▪◦▪=Sirex98= 00:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support good answers and obviously experienced.--Konst.ableTalk 02:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Strong support- A very good editor.Nileena joseph 03:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Strong support, excellent user. Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 05:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support --Alex (Talk) 11:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support I have no major concerns here. A good editor. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support and yes please, we need more admins who are knowledgeable about images. --Aguerriero (talk) 16:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support per statement and answers. Good editor, has made valuable contributions, no troublesome issues. Newyorkbrad 17:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. support per all above. (first Wikipedia contrib on Vista RC1!) ~crazytales56297 O rly? 03:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support - no problems here. Khoikhoi 03:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support looks good.-- danntm T C 04:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Merovingian ※ Talk 07:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support This user needs the mop? Go for it and good luck to you. Gryffindor 08:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support--Jusjih 18:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support--Richard 18:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC) I'm satisfied with the answers to questions 8a and 8b above. I think I could find a few fine points to pick on but this is not the place for that kind of discussion. Comment to Jusjih and GeeJo, I grant that Jusjih's explanation clarifies any ambiguity about whether he thought Chinese law applied to Wikipedia (Chinese or English). I would have been willing to support Jusjih's RFA if he had clarified the issue better during the time that his RFA was open. --Richard 18:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Looks good to me. Nishkid64 19:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Guess my vote Good user, I'm seeing his detailed DYK nominations all the time. He has a lot of experience as well. Michaelas10 (T|C) 19:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support this candidate. Conscious 19:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support yup. KrakatoaKatie 04:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Conditional Support: I'd rather see this user spend more time in the RC patrol for once (per user talk edits). --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 05:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. DarthVader 11:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. - Mailer Diablo 14:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support per nom. John254 15:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support - familiar face on WP:DYK . Bakaman Bakatalk 17:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support, dedicated user and good answers to questions. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 17:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Only 14 contributions to AfD since March is a bit of a problem, but the ones I've checked have substance. ~ trialsanderrors 20:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. Zaxem 01:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Mkdw 06:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support 1000-edits-a-month-avg is decent. I love ur answer for Q.8b. I can see consistency in your edits. Plus most of ur edits are in project namespace. You're one of those backstage people, aren't you? I believe u'll make a great admin. Cheers. -- Chez (Discuss / Email) • 07:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support per nom. --A. B. 15:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support --Steve 02:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support -- Tawker 21:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support - I see him at the DYK area. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

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.