mic_none

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/J-stan Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/J-stan

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


J-stan

[edit]

(talk page) FINAL: (84/2/0); ended 15:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

J-stan (talk · contribs) - J-stan is a user who I've come across a few times in passing, and have been quite impressed with. He has a very steady rate of contribution the past six months, balanced across the namespaces. He frequently helps out at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests, and is a very calm and collected user in disputes, which is something we absolutely need in an admin. He's thoughtful, and would be a welcome addition to the administrator team. Wizardman 05:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination from Rudget (talk · contribs)
I've come across J-stan numerous times, and as Wizardman says, have always been impressed. J-stan's dedication to the wiki is unrelentless. Reliability is a key strength that he holds and I'm sure it'd be a welcome trait in the admin team here. He has also an inquisitive mind, and I trust he would always engage in community consensus and his experience at places like AFD, prove that alone. J-stan's a great editor (note editor, not just user) and also a contributor worthy of the few extra buttons—he'll undoubtedly get. WP:100 here we come! Good luck, Rt. 16:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Consider these noms accepted. Thanks to Wizardman and Rudget for the excellent noms! J-ſtanContribsUser page 17:43, 1 January 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 admin work do you intend to take part in?
I plan to help out in general maintenance areas, such as closing AfDs, and deleting pages with expired PROD tags. I'll keep on newpage and recent changes patrol, looking for CSD candidates and vandalism, and helping out at WP:AIV. I also will help out at WP:RFPP, protecting pages that need it. I have done a few reports there, and I think I can determine properly when to protect a page.
Once I am absolutely confident I know how, I would like to perform some cut and paste move fixes. I probably wouldn't start this right away, but I might move into this area in the future. Addition made 19:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC): I wanted to explain why I'd like to move into this area, I felt that this needed more explanation, going back over it. Not a big reason, it's just that I've heard some admins complain about performing this task. It appears to be time consuming, tiring, and an overall pain. Once I'm read up in the subject, I'd gladly spend the time fixing cut and paste moves to help out the other admins and the project in general.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
Well, I do enjoy vandal fighting and CSD tagging, and while those represent a good part of my edits, my edits to History of timekeeping, specifically this diff (note, that's not an immediate diff, that shows the difference from when I started editing that page up until someone else edited it). It started as an assignment for admincoaching, but now I really want it to get up to GA status. It's a Top-importance, B-class article at WikiProject Time, and I think that article shows some of my best writing.
Also, I have devoted some of my most numerous edits to Tom Clancy's EndWar, which is a future video game (which looks awesome!), and though we don't have much to go on, I think that along with other editors, we have made it a pretty comprehensive article, and a good start for the coming few months when it starts to come out; it's supposed to early this year.
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?
Hasn't any good vandal fighter? :) I've been in conflicts before, most recently the Mercury ordeal. While there was no direct heated conflict involving myself, there was a lot of drama created by that case, and I felt that I may have advanced that by creating a counter-recall section. I felt that Mercury deserved a second chance, is all. It doesn't really matter now, anyway, but it's worth mentioning. It all happened so quickly, and then it just fizzled out after Mercury asked to be desysoped.
Also, getting involved at EAR and ANI has gotten me involved in numerous disputes. I make a big effort to be calm and collected during these, and I think I do a pretty good job of it, too.

Optional question from Chris.B

4. What would you do if a user reverts an article four times in slightly more than 24 hours? (Thus obeying the letter of WP:3RR.) Chris.B (talk) 20:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, an edit war is an edit war, regardless of the 3RR, which is basically a policy that allows action to be taken against edit wars. The edit war policy page under "What is edit warring?" states "Edit warring is the underlying behavior, not a simple measure of the number of reverts on a single page in a specific period of time." So depending on the situation, I would either block the user (or users, depending on how I feel the users are interacting) or just warn him. I probably wouldn't warn if I saw a 3RR warning, as the user could have seen it and waited until the 25th hour. If I were to block, I probably wouldn't cite a breach of the 3RR as the reason, as that is strictly +3 reverts in 24 hours, but I would cite edit warring as the reason.
But then you also have to take into account exceptions to the 3RR, such as if the user is reverting vandalism. It really relies on whether I see good faith from the user or not.

Question from Harland1

5 have you ever used any other account to edit Wikipedia?
Yeah, J-stan isn't my first account. As you see here, there are two redirects to my userpage. I originally created the account "New Kind of weird" to be my main account, but the only edits I made with it were a couple edits to it's userpage, and then I lost the password, and I didn't know how to get it back at the time. Cannen9 was supposed to be an alternate account (I remember making it for a purpose, but I can't remember), but I used that for all edits, I only made 50 or so. I created this account around the same time, since I lost the password to the first account, and I didn't really edit with it a lot. But then around the end of June, I wanted a clean start at being a good Wikipedian, and this account seemed like the right one to do it under, and so, here we are! And also, I don't think I edited under an IP before then. I'm pretty sure I didn't, unless I forgot to log in, or something. I also would like to forget about my other accounts; they represent my editing before I learned the policies and guidelines, and so I think of them as the figurative naked baby pictures of my editing habits: I don't want to look at them, people know they exist but I don't really want them to see them either. Of course, you're welcome to look at the contribs, but please don't judge my editing on them. I've grown too much for those edits to be an accurate representation of my habits.
Added 17:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC) Oh, and I totally forgot: I run an account, User:J-stanbot, which I only use for making supervised edits with AWB, and (if the opportunity presents itself) I might use it when editing from public computers. I wasn't too keen on calling it a bot when it has no bot flag, but that was suggested to me by other editors in this discussion.

Optional q from Simply south (talk · contribs)

6. Of your articles and contrivbutions to Wikipedia, are there any of which you are not proud of? If so, why?
Sorry it took so long to answer, I was recently busy for a while. I don't really have any edits I'm not proud of in the sense that they violate policy, I've never vandalized, I can't remember an edit war, and I have never intentionally personally attacked someone. I wouldn't say that my contribs show perfection, but whenever I make an edit that either right then or in the near future that I just don't feel good about for whatever reason (either taking a joke a bit too far, or making an inflammatory, sarcastic comment), I always try to learn from my mistakes. As in the issues User:Iamunknown brought up, I do occasionally jump into a discussion without being fully informed, and end up discovering something later that changes my view. I am not immediately proud of certain edits, but afterwards, I am proud that I learned from them. So in the immediate future following uncomfortable edits, yes, I do. In the long run, however, I am proud that the edits have improved me.

Question from Corvus cornixtalk

7. If your nomination is successful, will you add yourself to the "admins open to recall" category?
I don't think so. I'd certainly be open to a trout-batting, or even if something really serious came up, I'd go through a reconfirmation process. But I'd really just appreciate it if someone really sat me down (speaking figuratively; I don't normally stand when I edit) and explained what I did wrong and why I should never do it again. I believe I should be given the chance to learn from my mistakes.
That being said, if we ever agree on an official reconfirmation/desysopping process, I'd gladly go through it, as well as an RfCU (in neutral territory, i.e. the project namespace). Note, not adding myself to the category doesn't mean I'm not open to it. I hardly think someone with a serious bone to pick is going to check for my name in the category, not see it, and move on. I'm fully aware that I'm accountable to the community for all my actions and contributions. But being civil means that we, as civilized people, must act civilized, and that includes forgiving others (in this hypothetical case, me) when they (again, me. or I, would be the appropriate pronoun) make mistakes.
To sum it all up, I'm going to perform some unpopular actions; that seems to come with the mop. I'm a good person. My track record here as a civil, good-faith-assuming user speaks for itself. If I make a mistake, I'd really appreciate a nice, calm comment rather than checking to see if I float like a duck. If I make too many mistakes, or a really big one, I'll glaldly consider a recon RfA

Question from Congolese fufu

8. Would you block a user whose name was that of a country? For example, Laos or Canada? For your information, my user name used to be Congolese but I had it changed for fear of being blocked like User:Laos?
FYI, Laos was unblocked, because there was no apparent problem with the name. WP:U doesn't say anything about countries. Of course, there are other factors to consider. It could be their real name (consider Ireland Baldwin, America Ferrera, and I know of others named after countries), in which case, I would not block. But it could be inflammatory, offensive to members of a certain country, promotional of a certain country, or something else not permitted by the username policy, and then I would block. I'm not extremely proficient in dealing with usernames, and if I truly was unsure, I'd probably make a post on ANI or contact another admin. I wouldn't have blocked your name (either now or as Congolese), Laos's username, or User:Canada, who is already blocked, but I'm not here to wheel war. Notice, User:Laos and User:Canada were both blocked by the same admin.
9. If you encountered a POV pusher who simply deleted other editors' negative, but reliably sourced, edits and edited only overly positive information about the subject and refused all attempts at consensus building, mediation, and RFC, would you block the editor? What if the editor kept deleting positive information and edited only very negative information; would that change your action?Congolese fufu (talk) 03:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the first instance, he wouldn't be facing extra consensus building, mediation, or an RfC if he wasn't being disruptive. This section of NPOV states that while Verifiability is one content criterion, Neutral point of view is "mandatory, non-negotiable, and to be followed in all articles". So first, I'd make sure that, even though the undue weight edits are reliably sourced, they are removed and the article is neutral, and I'd ask another admin to watch the page for reverting to POV edits, and protect if necessary (even though I'd be in my right to protect it, there seems to be a dispute as to protecting pages when you are involved with the dispute on them). Now that the content dispute is settled, there is a clear cut problem to be addressed: if the user reverts to a POV version (unlikely: the user probably POV-pushed in retaliation to the bad edits, assuming good faith), he should be blocked (although, if controversial enough, I might be accused of admin abuse, so I might pass the user on to ANI, or directly to another admin).
Now, the second instance would probably need to be treated a bit differently. The instance in the previous section could very well be misguided good faith edits. This one's a bit more serious. While the article would need to be brought to NPOV, the user could be attacking the subject (especially serious in a BLP case), and this would need to be handled as vandalism, as according to this section identifying vandalism. He could also be violating policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Libel. These would require more serious intervention, including blocks earlier in the dispute. The edits would probably make clear early on whether the user is acting in good or bad faith.

General comments

[edit]

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

Discussion

[edit]
Support
[edit]
  1. Support as nom. Wizardman 17:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong Support. Great all around editor. Does a great job at WP:ER, WP:AFD,.....--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Majorly (talk) 17:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per my co-nom. Great editor. Rt. 17:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support, redux. Ok now? ;-P Avruchtalk 18:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, yes! J-ſtanContribsUser page 18:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Of course, great editor.--Phoenix-wiki 18:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - trustworthy and helpful editor. Addhoc (talk) 19:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Great contributor and answers indicate an exhaustive knowledge of policy. Chris.B (talk) 19:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Very well rounded. S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s (Talk to Me) 19:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support yeah sure, no obvious reason not to. RMHED (talk) 19:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. Good luck! Malinaccier (talk) 20:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. This one's a no-brainer. I've met J-Stan at WP:EA where his efforts to help others are highly appreciated. I dorfbaer I talk I 20:28, January 1, 2008
  13. Support - good answers to questions, no reason to oppose. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 20:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support - I've had good interactions with this user. Would make an excellent admin; trustworthy, experienced and civil. ScarianCall me Pat 20:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Strong support. bibliomaniac15 20:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support, I have been watching this user for a while now and I must say I am impressed with his growth since joining the project. *Cremepuff222* 21:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support I can definitely support J-stan; my interactions with him have been highly positive, and he's a productive, courteous editor. Master of Puppets Care to share? 21:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. I've encountered and/or worked with this editor in a number of project spaces. He strikes me as dedicated and knowledgeable, and I've always found him interested in seeking consensus and read to bend to it, even when he personally disagrees. I've seen nothing in his contribution history to lead me to believe he will misuse the tools. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Okay. —αἰτίας •discussion• 22:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oh, go on then Prolific, dedicated and courteous editor. Pedro :  Chat  22:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Yes. Spartaz Humbug! 22:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. $upport Great editor will make a better admin. Cheers! Dfrg_msc 23:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. — Darkfalls talk 23:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support An easy decision. Húsönd 23:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. I'm not kidding. I thought he already was an administrator. Maser (Talk!) 23:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Fuck. Yes. Please. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 23:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Spebi 23:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support, for my old Adopter, my you certainly have made a lot of friends! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan4314 (talk • contribs)
  29. Support No problems here. --Sharkface217 00:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. I like what I see here. Someone who is Clueful, and not just a user who uses automated tools rather than using their judgement. Understands and values what we're trying to achieve here. All looks in order. Daniel 00:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support!: It's about time! - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Will be a good admin. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. oh yes 'n1yaNt 03:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support VanTucky talk 04:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support - Absolutely no reason not to. -MBK004 04:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support - Well if Pedro voted support then this user must deserve the mop, j/k. No this user has proven to me many times to show admin qualities, i know (s)he will not abuse the mop. Tiptoety talk 05:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He. I'm a dude. :) J-ſtanContribsUser page 16:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. J-stan is more than ready for the tools and has been for a while now. I am confident with him having the tools. SorryGuy  Talk  08:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Absolutely --jonny-mt 08:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support You will make a good admin. You listen, you are open to new ideas, and most importantly, you are not afraid to reassess your position with the passage of time. You have long since earned my trust, and I know that you won't abuse the tools. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Absolutely! docboat (talk) 13:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support, no more needs to be said. Keilanatalk(recall) 15:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Strong Support This is an easy one! Mr Senseless (talk) 15:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. Great job so far, no concerns. Meets my standards, too. Bearian (talk) 16:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Positive interactions with this user, accurate reports to RFPP, civility and calmness when dealing with other users: J-stan will make a great admin. Acalamari 18:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Secret account 20:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. strong support —DerHexer (Talk) 20:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support, solid candidate. Rigadoun (talk) 21:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support No problems here. Razorflame (talk) 01:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support Trustworthy editor. I've seen him around a few times. Timmehcontribs 02:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support Lots of involvement with the WP pages which means he should handle the tools quite well - the only concern is the relatively low number of mainspace contributions.--JForget 03:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. I thought you were an admin. Strong support. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 04:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support I've seen J-stan's work. It's been good. And yes, I thought he was an admin already as well... - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 05:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. the_undertow talk 06:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Pile-on Support, per the other 54 supports here. Great editor. Lankiveil (talk) 12:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  56. Súppört - No doubt. Strong editor, will make a great admin. Lara❤Love 14:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support great editor. Oysterguitarist 16:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support - Good contributer, who my experiences with suggest, will make a great admin. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support seems like a good candidate for administrator. Archtransit (talk) 20:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Mmph – He isn't one? —Animum (talk) 21:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. TYWOA Thought You Were One Already... Jmlk17 23:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support conscientious editor who has good use for the tools. Doczilla (talk) 03:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support I've been expecting this for a while. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Strong Support. I've not commented on RfAs for a while, but seeing this I can't help but voice my support. J-Stan would make a great addition to the ranks of our admins. Pastordavid (talk) 23:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support. Excellent contributor and I think they will do great with the mop. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 01:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Thought-you-were Support GlassCobra 08:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support Yep! The Helpful One (Talk) (Contributions) (Review Me!) 16:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support Zero concerns. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support good editor, no reason to oppose. Seen this user around. NHRHS2010 Happy Holidays 18:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support - User states wants to work on some Cut and Paste move fixes, and it seems user:Anthony Appleyard(along with the others that sometimes work on merges) could use some help, so more hands are always a plus. -Dureo (talk) 02:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support - great user. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support - Per world + dog. Gromlakh (talk) 06:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh? J-ſtanContribsUser page 14:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support Definitely seen around with a general aroma of good will. Says he learns from mistakes, always a good sign. His answers above are fairly grounded. All this to the greater good. Go. Pigman☿ 07:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support A great editor. Midorihana∫∞ 08:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support. R. Baley (talk) 09:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  76. The Transhumanist 20:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support C'est moi Parlez 20:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support I've recently met this user (he disagreed with a vandalism revert/warning I made, but it turns out I was right B) ), and he seems to me like a level-headed person. · AndonicO Hail! 00:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support - Definately a fine candidate. Seen this username all around the place doing lots of excellent work. On RfA sensible comments and suggestions are always left. The time has come! ;-) Lradrama 11:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Strong Support Most definately yes, I can't believe I didn't vote before! Harland1 (t/c) 14:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Strong support - I've been J-stans admin coach for a few months now, but to be honest - he didn't need it. When we first started, I could tell he was very clued up with policy and knew the wiki-way. Upon further interaction with him, I can tell he's a very motivated chap and always remains extremely civil - often he helps move discussion to an amicable end. I asked him to concentrate on AfD's for a while, so i could make sure he was knew exactly how article processes work, and his thoughtful commenting showed he didn't just jump into discussion without doing enough research. I had one concern that J-stan didn't do enough article work so I asked him to work on some articles - In one edit, he changed History of timekeeping from this to this which I am sure everyone will agree is an excellent improvement. All in all, he's one of the user I would trust most with the tool. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support No concerns, will make a fine admin. Good luck. Carlosguitar (ready and willing) 21:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support - Will be a great admin. ChetblongTalkSign 00:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support - Looks pretty good to me. James086Talk | Email 08:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
  1. My impression of J-stan, through interacting with him on noticeboards and reviewing at least his last 1000 contributions, is that he does not regularly research disputes before commenting on them and that he regards blocks rather flippantly. While I appreciate his dedication to the project, I would not appreciate these qualities in an administrator. A block, in theory, is not supposed to be a big deal, but practically it is - a block remains in a log indefinitely, a logged block can ruin an RfA, a block can be a determining factor in another block by a hasty or careless administrator, etc. Note that I am not planning to provide diffs to support my judgement - I do not have enough time. I apologise. I know it is typical at an English-language Wikipedia RfA to ask for diffs from those who oppose. For those interested, I would recommend that you too review Special:Contributions/J-stan. --Iamunknown 22:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe what Iamunknown is specifically referring to is this edit. Jeske Couriano (there are some accent marks in there somewhere) was feeling harassed by an editor, User:V-Dash, and asked for a ban. I had seen some admins accept calling an indef block a ban in a few cases, and so I assumed that the converse was also true: a ban is an indef block. It certainly is not, as a ban doesn't always require technical intervention, being a social matter revoking the invitation to edit, and a block is a technical restriction removing the ability to edit. Bans are sometimes enforced by blocks of whatever length. I had seen the previous discussions, and I trusted Jeske to make a good call; in this case I thought he was calling for an indef block, when he wasn't. I was wrong. J-ſtanContribsUser page 23:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Interaction with this user on Mercury’s recall shows a tendency of creating faction rifts. I’m not familiar with his other work, but I can’t support at this time.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not participating in an unnecessary cluster-fuck is not "creating faction rifts". Dorfklatsch 10:18, January 7, 2008
    Actually, I participated the crap out of it. I wasn't going to reply, because he was kind of right. In Mercury's recall, I initiated a section against recall, so you could say that there were two opposing factions. I wouldn't say I have a tendency of doing this, but I haven't run into Certified.Gangsta anywhere else, so he wouldn't know. J-ſtanContribsUser page 14:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    :D "participated the crap out of it". Ok then, but based on the interactions I had with you, I still think you created that section in a good-faithed effort to voice concerns over the way Mercury was treated during the recall. The attempt may be labelled idealistic, but it certainly was not your intention to create a faction rift for no purpose (as in WP:POINT or some such). Dorfklatsch 15:27, January 7, 2008
    Correct, I had no intention of creating disruption. However, CG is entitled to his opinion. J-ſtanContribsUser page 15:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
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.