Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Jc37

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for bureaucratship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.


Jc37[edit]

Final (69/22/8); ended 17:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC) Useight (talk) 17:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination[edit]

Jc37 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) – Hi all. I'm submitting this RfB to the community because I'd like to help. It's what I like to do here at Wikipedia. I don't have any FAs (or rather: I haven't successfully sent any articles through the FA process AFAIK), but that's not really been my focus. I tend to enjoy more, creating stubs, or helping a stub on its way, or even more, organising an existing page so that its flow is better, and it's clearer and easier to read. (Incidentally, I dislike that this is supposed to be one big block of text : ) - I suppose I like the editor-ing part of editing. I enjoy cleaning up articles, and in particular, lists and categories. I suppose that all of these might be pretty much considered mostly thankless tasks, but we each contribute to Wikipedia in our own way : ) - As for non-content/article-space, I've been present for/contributed to many policy/process discussions over the years, helping write/re-write many policy/guideline/essay pages. I also like to help out new (and not-so-new) editors. In the past, I've also been a "go-to person" to look over proposed policy/guidelines, particular edits, 3PO etc. I was entrusted with the tools and responsibilities of adminship in 2006. I tend to be most active at CfD, but as I like to help out, I float all over. For example, the other day I noticed that there was a backlog at RfPP, so I cleared most of the page. As you may notice if you look over my contribs, I have had some "gaps" in editing in the past due to various real life issues/concerns (at one point my ancient computer gave up the ghost in the machine : ) - Anyway, to all who take the time to "look me over", thanks for your time : ) - jc37 08:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: C'est moi : ) - jc37 08:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate[edit]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as a bureaucrat. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?
A: - I've read a LOT of RfA discussions. And I've seen a fair number of contentious closures. RfA (like most of the processes which grant an individual user-rights and related responsibilities) is pretty much a hybrid between voting and consensus. So with that in mind, while there really is no "magic" number, anything better than 3/4 (75%) is "usually" a successful candidacy, with the region roughly between 2/3 and 3/4 being within discretion. That said, in preparing for this nom, I read over quite a few past successful RfBs, and find that each seems to have their own personal preference on the specifics of the numbers. I seem to remember being in some RfC discussion long (long long) past where many sitting bureaucrats were polled on this, and there was a general agreement on where the "fuzzy middle" of the numbers should lie, but it all pretty much resolved as: it depends on the stuation, we'd rather trust the bureaucrats to be conscientious in their discretion than to affix arbitrary benchmarks in policy - which is part of why there is currently still no mandated numeric amount. - jc37 08:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
A: Depends on the situation. "Contentious" covers a lot of ground. In some cases, a 3PO might be a good idea, in others, it may not be necessary. As for "criticised", an RfA often brings together those who disagree, and so there are those who will disagree with (criticise) a closure. Such is life on Wikipedia. The response to that is I believe the same as expected of any closer. Be ready to explain any close. Don't close if you're unsure of the accuracy/appropriateness of the closure. And so on. - jc37 08:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Wikipedians expect bureaucrats to adhere to high standards of fairness, knowledge of policy and the ability to engage others in the community. Why do you feel you meet those standards?
A: Because I do? lol. But more seriously, I'm a firm believer in the Consensus model, and in Wikiquette. (See the top of my talk page for some links/examples.) Incidentally, I considered linking the various policy/process pages which related to my statements in my nomination and these questions, but as I did, I realised I could link nearly everything. And since I felt/feel that most commenting here would hopefully be at least somewhat well-versed in such pages, I decided to spare everyone the wall-o-blue : ) - jc37 08:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Leaky caldron

4. Can you explain why (a) you think that the setting on an edit count limit on WP:RFA would be beneficial, (b) your rationale for imposing such an automated limit and (c) in what circumstances you would pass an RFA candidate with 400 edits? See [1]
A: - Well, I'm not entirely sold on the idea that there should be a "set" limit. But I can see the benefits being similar to NOTNOW. Though, thinking about it, I think setting such a limit might be less seemingly confrontational to a newbie than telling them after-the-fact "not now" - being proactive, rather than reactive. As for why 400, I explained in that link why I picked that number. Though, to be sure, numeric edit counting is quite open to gaming, and might need to be locked down some way, like saying that userspace and talk space edits, as well as (semi-)automated edits shouldn't count towards that number. I suppose the idea/intent is to try to come up with a way to assign a benchmark for "minimum experience". And I think even if we set one, IAR, as always should be potentially applicable under certain case-by-case bases. The short answer I suppose is: I'm not convinced one way or other, but I'd be interested in what the rest of the community thinks. If you'd like, I would be happy to discuss this with you and see where you and I may agree and disagree : ) - jc37 09:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from TheSpecialUser
5. What according to you are the minimum requirements for an editor to pass an RfA and under which circumstances or how much % consensus (minimum) will you promote an editor?
A: As a closer? AFAIK, according to policy, other than being a registered Wikipedian (having an account), there are currently no minimum requirements for an editor to pass an RfA. That said, as I noted above (under question 1), we traditionally have rough numeric benchmarks we look toward as a guide. I think I explained this in question 1. However, if there is something you would like me to clarify, I would be happy to do so. (I feel like I'm missing something in your question.) - jc37 10:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing much but, for e.g., there are 2 editors (a and b). A gets 76% S% votes in their rfa while B gets 73% S% votes, so who will be promoted by you, (both? only A? only B? none?) and why? →TheSpecialUserTalkContributions* 10:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would depend on the substantive discussion in the RfA. Sorry, I don't mean to say (again) "it depends", but it kinda does. But ok, for the sake of whatever, let's pretend that all supports and all opposes are merely "support" and "oppose", then, by the numbers alone, I think I would probably promote both. (Though in that very unlikely case, I would still probably do some due diligence and check their contribs myself, in part to see whether I would feel comfortable being the closer.) Does that better answer? (I know, I've always been terrible with answering hypotheticals : ) - jc37 10:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That was perfect. →TheSpecialUserTalkContributions* 14:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional questions from Scottywong
6. Please describe/summarise why and when it would be appropriate to:
6a. ...add the bot, account creator, or reviewer user group to an account.
A: While in the past I have poked my nose around BAG and such, I would definitely need to brush up and read quite a bit before diving into that. The other user-rights noted are given as an admin, and as far as I recall, I've not given those out.
6b. ...remove the administrator, bot, account creator, IP block exemption, or reviewer user group from an account.
A: Well, removing admin user-rights is an ability only recently given to bureaucrats on en.wiki (last summer, I think). There are very specific situations listed, such as by request, by arbcomm request, or the newish inactive admin policy. As for the rest, I think the same answer as above applies.
6c. ...rename user accounts.
A: The guidelines are listed at Wikipedia:Changing username/Guidelines. The 6 examples listed there: Present name is a policy violation. Privacy reasons. Eliminating SUL conflicts. Personal preference. Trivial renames. You didn't ask about usurptions, or SUL situations, but those are explained on that page as well. - jc37 17:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. How does one determine consensus? And how may it be determined differently on RfA/RfB discussions than other consensus discussions?
A:Very carefully : )
Kidding aside, a consensus may be determined by reading through the discussion in question and weighing the arguements in light of the current discussion, and in light of the broader Wikipedia previous consensus and common practice (as may be noted on policy/guideline project pages).
As I noted in a question above: RfA/B (like most of the processes which grant an individual user-rights and related responsibilities) is pretty much a hybrid between voting and consensus. Please see questions 1 and 5 for more info. Though please feel free to ask for further clarification. - jc37 17:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. Why do you wish to be a bureaucrat?
A: I saw this, and as I mentioned in the statement at the top, I'd like to help. - jc37 17:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Juliancolton
9. You have one edit left before your internet connection dies forever, and you can use it for one of three things: to fix a typo in the lead of an article, to block an IP vandal (your edit is notifying them on their talk page), or giving somebody a barnstar or equivalent praise. Which would you choose?
A: Well if I really only get one edit (and knew that in advance), I'd probably give another (presumably active) admin the "barnstar or equivalent praise" and in the same edit let them know about the typo and IP vandal : ) - jc37 16:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, that's the best you got? ;) Bureaucrats don't always have the luxury of being able to kill three birds with one stone. I guess to put it another way: which category of contribution out of those three do you consider the most important? Juliancolton (talk) 17:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Most important for Wikipedia? Or most important to me and that vague sense of perfectionistism that rears it's head at the most inopportune times? (lol)
If the IP is indeed a vandal, then (unfortunately) that should probably be dealt with before a minor typo, or before giving a fellow Wikipedian the support/praise they so likely deserve. (But there's a decent chance I'd still try to find some other way to get the other two options accomplished : ) - jc37 17:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional questions (entirely optional) from Kudpung
10. I. appreciate your answers in Q1 & Q4, concerning benchmarks. What is your personal take on 'crat chat' rather than taking a sole decision on borderline cases.
A: I consider it a type of 3PO. (Though I suppose a bit more expansive - allowing for the possibility of a sort of consensual discussion amongst bureaucrats.)
11. What should be, if any, the role of a bureaucrat in calling an RfA to order - especially in the case of obvious trolling, votes based purely on fancruft/vengeance, canvassing, diffs taken deliberately out of context in order to be negative, and lies?
A: Most of your examples could be dealt with by any admin (and depending on the situation, any editor). What I think may affect bureaucrats directly could be to re-affirm/clarify what sorts of things would or wouldn't typically be taken into account in closing. - jc37 03:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
12. Have you ever read the collated tables and stats that demonstrate trends in RfA candidate pass/fail thresholds? Indeed, have you ever participated in any discussions about possible reforms to the current Admin election process?`
A: yes and yes. (I'm guessing I'm not gonna get off that easy lol - I'll look for diffs in a bit : ) - jc37 03:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC) - LOTS of discussions at WT:RFA, as well as Wikipedia:RfA Review, and Wikipedia:Adminship poll, among other things. - jc37 05:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
13. Do you think calling adminship a promotion could encourage users to run for office for reasons that might not be entirely appropriate?
A: I suppose I could see that. That said, I think it's a fairly common turn of phrase. I think I personally usually use "granted tools and responsibilities", but that said, I think I've used "promote" at least once on this page. - jc37 03:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from WilliamH
14. An up-and-coming editor here on en.wikipedia with 650 edits and 3 months experience posts a username change request at WP:CHUS. You check the username he has requested and among the accounts, you find an account on de.wiktionary created in 2009 with 19 edits which last edited 9 months ago. There are a few other accounts on other projects, but they were all created years ago and have no edits, and there is no unified login for the username anyway. What would you do?
A: Ouch @ no SUL. My honest answer right now would be: contact some other bureaucrat for help (You, for example? : ) - But to try to answer: Was the the purpose of the request SUL? (Was the user requesting SUL? Listing at WP:CHUS would suggest they were not.) If not, then a rename sounds like it would be declined due to Target username has edits to another WMF project. (per WP:CHUG). Though if so (they did request this with SUL in mind), I think that this would be declined in this case as well, or at least put on hold for more info. (And I will say, responding to this makes me uncomfortable right now, which means, that I would be unlikely to be the "closer", as it were, of this request until I had more experience with SUL.) But to try to figure out the potholes: While the following might have applied: "If a single-user login has not yet been created, the user with the most edits holds the "claim" to the SUL. (from WP:SUL/C), I think the de.wikt account presents issues: older than 6 months; I don't know whether the following applies to de.wikt "If the wiki has account creation restricted then it is not able to be merged at this time." (from meta:H:UL); and so on. (I keep looking up expecting to see a trout heading my way : ) - So anyway the best answer to this in my opinion (especially as as a novice bureaucrat) would be to go ask for help/advice concerning SUL. (There's something to be said for institutional memory.) And there's always another Wikipedian to ask : ) - jc37 05:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm not quite clear on your response. When you quote that "If a single-user login has not yet been created, the user with the most edits holds the "claim" to the SUL", which user are you saying that applies to? Thanks. WilliamH (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry that that wasn't clear. I was meaning the requester. (650 > 19).
Something else I'd like to express though. I've read and re-read over various related pages several times now. The reason is that prior to and when SUL (and usurption - which is what I was also kinda talking about when I used the SUL abbreviation above) was implemented, I remember discussions concerning minimum time frames for requesters. How long did they need to have the account, and how many edits minimum did they need to have, even to usurp an account of zero edits. And my fuzzy memory (I looked and haven't found the diffs yet. I think it was at WP:BN though - I'm fairly sure that it was during the same time that people were grabbing up the single character usernames) recalls that one of the bureaucrats (I wanna say it was Mbisanz, but I wouldn't swear to it) said that he was giving it a rough short period of time, something like a week with like 20 edits (enough to show that they weren't a throwaway account, wasting everyone's time). But it's fuzzy memory of the past (At the time I was heavily reading about SUL - I thought it was a cool idea at the time - but as I wasn't a bureaucrat, I guess I didn't log it for deep storage in my brain : )
While fetchcomms and I may have have a bit of a (I won't dispute his use of the word "idealogical") difference of opinion about RfA questions, this is where I have thought that he has a bit of a point. Sometimes questions could be dealt with by just asking someone clueful. : ) - Though unfortunately not everyone takes the time to ask. (And yes, I would if I wasn't in the middle of this RfB : )
Anyway sorry for the lengthy aside, here's (besides questions about other wikis) where my quandry in your question lies (and where I as a novice would come ask you): (650 > 19) but (3 months < created in 2009). So I keep wondering if I'm missing something in that part of the question.
And by the way, I do believe what I mentioned in another comment below where I said "and if in the process it provides an opportunity for a learning experience, so much the better" : ) - I realise not everyone feels this way (it supposedly makes you look "weak" or some such), but I personally have never had an issue with saying "I don't know".
Wow this looks like a big wall o text now that I look at it. My apologies. I hope it helped clarify what I was trying to say, and what my thinking was. - jc37 03:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Got some much needed sleep (as I get more tired my typing can tend to become even more "stream-of-consciousness than usual : )
And did some reading of Wikipedia:SUL/C again, and found a sentence that (I think) directly deals with declining such an usurption request: "Has the other-project user been active in the last year?" (from Wikipedia:SUL/C#Handling_SUL_conflicts). - and the de.wikt account editing 9 months ago suggests: yes. So such a request would likely be declined in this case. - jc37 10:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from My76Strat
15. Please show a response here to User:Avanu's comment shown here as it begs to be known which position you favor.
A: When I posted there, I was hoping for a broader set of responses. I personally think a discussion is a good thing, and many eyes (and many thoughts/voices) can bring out things that an individual may not be considering or have even thought of. So that was mostly the point of that post. (An attempt to start a discussion.) I had just read how several people were arguing for and against pre-emptive blocking of presumably COI-named accounts. So I wanted to see what they thought about how it meshes with the "preventative, not punative" part of blocking policy (something which, in my experience, has been debated in its applicability to any particular situation in the past). Just as then, I now am not "sure" about it. I suppose my general "leaning" would be to consider things like: The community, though still somewhat in flux about COI editing (we currently seem to have an on again off again debate about paid editors, for example), seems to be leaning towards allowing COI-declared editors to edit within certain strictures (WP:COI). So I guess I might see this as similar to the old userbox-war argument about whether someone should be allowed to list a COI or bias-related userbox on their talk page. At that time I eventually pretty much agreed with the perspective that (as long as the phrasing was positive/civil, etc.) we should allow editors to helpfully express such bias/COI, as such userboxes can provide a helpful clue to other editors when interacting with the editor in question. So it would seem that something similar should apply to usernames. However, as usernames have MUCH more potential visibility than a userbox on a user's talk page, I'm still not sure about this, and would be happy to engage in further discussion about it. (There were also some fairly interesting points in the discussion about questions of asking the individual to abandon the account rather than it being necessary to block the account.) In the meantime, should I be granted the tools to help out at WP:CHU, until such discussions have consensus one way or other, any such naming I would do would obviously be based on existing common practice/policy. (Based partially on his comments here, I think one of the first people I think I would want to ask about all of this would likely be User:MBisanz, who I note doesn't appear to have commented in the aforementioned discussion.) Sorry for the length. I hope I clarified as you asked. But please feel free to ask for further clarification, obviously. - jc37 04:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from RegentsPark
16. Being confirmed as a bureaucrat is a sign that the community has a great deal of respect for that Wikipedian as an editor, as someone who can make hard decisions, and as someone who is good at managing conflicts. Could you provide us with an example of a situation where an admin action of yours has been controversial, has resulted in conflict (or even lots of verbiage) and how you handled that situation? (A few diffs with a very brief explanation would be more than sufficient.) My apologies for the late question. I've been meaning to ask this but that dratted RL keeps intruding!--regentspark (comment) 16:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A: You mean besides this RfB request? : )
Kidding aside sure, let me think about it. (Unless reminded about it, I don't tend to dwell on such things.) I know at various times, I've been accused of just about everything under the sun. And the first thing that you all too often hear as a closer of a close someone disagrees with is: admin tool abuse or "supervoting" or some such. Give me a couple minutes to check some things and I'll see what I can find/recall. - jc37 16:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm sure I could probably find some interesting things from back when UCFD was separated from CfD for awhile, I think I'll just take an easy example since it's in front of us: User:Demiurge1000's oppose below. That was a mess and no two ways about it. It basically started (for me) with a request by SmokeyJoe for someone to close an open discussion. I did. And then the "fun" began. I'll go see what I can find as far as links to illustrate/explain the chronology of events. - jc37 16:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, It looks like I wrote out a decent chronology of events here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive219#More_eyes_please. - And the MfD and DRV are linked at the top of that.
And the associated discussion on my talk page: User_talk:Jc37/Archive/05#MfD_Deletion.
If there's anything you'd like me to clarify, I'd be happy to, else I'll just let my comments in the DRV, at AN, and on my talk page, speak for themselves.
Happy reading : ) - jc37 17:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That is indeed very helpful. BTW, you should consider archiving your talk page rather than merely deleting comments. Much easier for the reader to find stuff!--regentspark (comment) 18:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do. Roughly once a year I move the whole thing to an archive sub page - see: here. That way the edit history is kept intact. Never been a big fan of the copy/paste archive systems myself. - jc37 19:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Interesting method!--regentspark (comment) 19:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

  • Note: For the sake of transparency, there are roughly a half dozen Wikipedians who I have discussed adminship and/or bureaucratship with in the past. I intend to drop each of them a friendly notice linking to this page. If anyone wishes to oppose due to this, they are of course welcome to. But I think it's merely the polite thing to do. - jc37 08:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Dropped a note with the three who co-nommed me for adminship, and 3 bureaucrats with whom I've discussed such things in the recent (and distant) past. - jc37 09:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.

Discussion[edit]

Support[edit]
  1. Support I see that Jc37 is prepared to take difficult decisions. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - A good amount of experience as an admin and has good edits. Though I see that their level of activity reduced between few months and has resumed since only 4 months, this user is trustworthy so support (no reason for me to oppose). →TheSpecialUserTalkContributions* 09:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - Trustworthy candidate, successful administrator. Wrote some nice responses to the questions above. Cheers, C(u)w(t)C(c) 09:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support as user seems to be helpful, considerate, friendly, and I feel can be trusted with the extra tools/responsibilities. Good luck! Warning - I was super close to opposing over this typo ;) GiantSnowman 10:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support, does good work at CfD, should do equally good work at RfA. - filelakeshoe 10:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support good amount of experience.....good edits as an admin.. StrikeEagle ✈ 10:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support – I have been encountering jc37 for some years now, mainly at cfd, where jc37 is consistently exemplary. Oculi (talk) 10:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. I know very little about what bureaucrats do, but I do understand adminship, and jc37 is masterful at that. Jc is thoughtful, friendly, humble, and willing to do the difficult and sometimes unpleasant things. That sounds like what you need as a bureaucrat.--Mike Selinker (talk) 11:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - I really don't see any reason not to.... Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - no issues come up while searching through the user's Admin Actions. We need more Crats, and we need to start here. Achowat (talk) 13:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support - Has consistently demonstrated good sense and willingness to do heavy lifting (in its many forms). --Orlady (talk) 13:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - acceptably boring and drama free. Competent. No concerns. QU TalkQu 13:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support - As in strongest possible. Jc37 has proven to be an excellent admin with trustworthy judgment. I have no doubts at all that he will be an excellent bureaucrat as well. --Kbdank71 14:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support He will manage those extra buttons quite easily. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 14:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Discussion in question 5 inspires confidence that the candidate understands the role of a crat. Monty845 15:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Decent participation in RFA, along with a low non-controversial profile. Secret account 15:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Will go good with the wrenches and screwdrivers.--Ankit MaityTalkContribs 15:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. Experienced and trustworthy. The candidate is quite helpful and knows how and when to consult others. Majoreditor (talk) 16:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Seems thoroughly prepared. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Support meh, sure. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support - one important factor to be considered here is whether or not the individual in question actually wants the responsibilities of a given role. I for instance do bloody little as an admin except edit protected templates occasionally, and could not unreasonably have my continued adminship open to question. This editor has done an extremely respectable job as an administrator, and I have no reservations that he would perform just as well in an expanded role. Also, I believe that by requesting this role, already knowing the responsibilities of adminship, he is indicating that he actually wants to assist in this important matter. He seems to know what he is doing as an admin, and what additional duties a bureaucrat has, and willing to take it on. I cannot see any reason to oppose. John Carter (talk) 17:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. Reliable. Resourceful. Responsive. --MisterGugaruz (talk) 17:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support We need all the extra hell.—cyberpower ChatLimited Access 17:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Yes, Cyber, we need hell. :-) --Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 18:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support, why not?--В и к и T 18:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support — why not? --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 18:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support trustworthy and helpful admin. Dreadstar ☥ 19:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support per Cyberpower's brilliant rationale, and poking around indicates he is up for the task and can be trusted. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak support. Reasons for 'cratship not entirely convincing, but a good track record of administrative activity and other contributions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support - Yes please to Jc37, this user has always worked hard and could handle being a 'crat easily. Rcsprinter (deliver) 20:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support: Candidate is hard-working, level-headed, and willing. A hella good idea. -- Dianna (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support: Solid, reliable, a worthy candidate. Snappy (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Yes, please. →Bmusician 02:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support: Thank you for your answers to my questions, which on the whole I found rather vague and non-committal.
    Your work as an admin is impeccable, and your regular participation at RfA (339 edits) is laudable - we really do need a core of regular voters rather than those who come out of the woodwork to vote with a vengeance or just because they like the candidate, or because they dislike adminship in general as an institution. Closing RfA is the nearest most users get to seeing the work of induividual bureaucrats, and indeed apart from routine name changing, is probably the most important feature of the job and its associated tools.
    With well over 300 contribs to RfA (339 edits) over the years , the frequent question stacking with your personal boilerplate (and encouraging others to use it) have given me pause over the years. Indiscriminate, and template questions are one of the evils of the process and encourages the newbie voters to copy the idea.
    RfA is one of your favourite pastures and due to your huge number of votes to RfAs, denied the chance of pasting your boilerplate and getting involved in the discussion, it may be difficult for you to take a purely neutral stance when closing one. I am therefore not entirely convinced that you would be able to keep your personal feelings towards a candidate out of your decision should you choose to close a close run RfA.
    I'm not sure about the 'friendly notices' placed on the talk pages of former noms for your RfA, the first of which failed for canvassing. It's not something I would have dared to do, especially on an RfB; in fact I requested users who were canvassed by an anon for my RfA not to come and vote. They were all close collaborators and would almost certainly have heard of the RfA anyway and supported, but they respected my requests to stay away.
    Nevertheless, you have strong support for your bid for 'cratship, and I'm sure you'll take the comments on board. I do not have any compelling reasons not to add my vote in this section. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. Candidate has clue and is hard-working. SpencerT♦C 04:45, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support I have no clue what a bureaucrat is, because we never seem to have these doggone RfB's ever </humor>, but I support for all the normal reasons. Buggie111 (talk) 04:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. Seems a good candidate to me. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 08:55, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support I have no reason to think that jc37 will have any issues closing requests for adminships according to consensus, nor do I think he will have any issues with username changes etc. Also, if one is a snob about people editing on comic books and pop culture, that's a very good reason to nudge said people into dry administrative work and away from content creation? —Tom Morris (talk) 09:14, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support I have no reason to believe that JC would have any issues performing the role of a 'crat in anything less than an exemplary capacity. Best of luck, Mifter (talk) 12:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support On the whole I like the answer to the questions. Having considered the comments raised by The Uninvited Co., I still believe Jc37 will make a good bureaucrat. KTC (talk) 13:37, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support - I don't usually support self-noms, but I trust this guy. :) BOZ (talk) 16:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support FAs are overrated anyway. Seems to know what he's doing.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:49, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  42. I wasn't quite sold on Jc37 for bureaucratship when I skimmed through his candidate statement, which didn't seem to have much relevance to his credentials in applying for the role. But then I read his answers to the questions, and I have to say, I'm very impressed. Jc37 not only seems to understand the basics of bureaucratship, but he has also demonstrated an amazing comprehension of the grey area for discretion which is so important in closing RfAs. I trust him to use good judgement in making decisions, and I think he'll be an extremely effective bureaucrat. Consider this a strong support. Master&Expert (Talk) 17:37, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support - speaking as a 'crat from another project, I know this one has what it takes. bd2412 T 22:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support - Largely based on previous impressions, etc., but also in view of a modest review of contributions. I admit that I have, at least once, wondered about the relatively net benefit/harm of boilerplate questions, but I don't see that as affecting my view of this editor's ability to responsibly handle the specific tasks 'crats handle at RfAs. --joe deckertalk to me 22:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support - Garamond Lethe(talk) 23:13, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support Good candidate --Morning Sunshine (talk) 01:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support Anyone in good standing who wants to help the 'pedia is good in my book. Ishdarian 02:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support - Good user. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  49. I truly have been moved to support this bid. I appreciate your thoughtful reply to my question and if deference is placed upon the length of your answer, may it reflect more upon me for framing a question that has no potential for an abbreviated answer. I do wish you the best. My76Strat (talk) 05:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support Unquestionably qualified, both through knowledge and temperament. Horologium (talk) 12:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support The user is in good standing and has ample knowledge of Wikipedia policies. Also, as User:MBisanz has noted at WP:AN, there is a requirement for more crats and this user doesn't raise any concerns. EngineerFromVega★ 17:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support There really seems to be no huge reason not to support them, although I also think that they will take the opposition's reasons into consideration if they do eventually gain the tools. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support He's been an excellent administrator with a cool head and great judgment. I have no qualms. Keilana|Parlez ici 01:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support No real concerns. "I don't approve of his RfA questions" is not relevant here, imho, because "posting RfA questions" isn't part of the 'crat job description. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 04:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support I see no problem with him getting a few more buttons to press and I trust his judgement. Plus we need more crats around here.--SKATER Is Back 12:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support per my usual standards. I have no issues. Bearian (talk) 17:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support their response to Oppose № 11 strikes me as reasonable; plus, there has been a request recently for more Bureaucrats due to an expected shortage. It Is Me Here t / c 23:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support Having carefully read all the arguments on both sides, I think Jc37 would be a net benefit as a bureaucrat. I am inclined to trust their personal integrity and competence. I do hope that if successful they will take the many comments on board though. --John (talk) 08:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support experienced editor, per responses to oppose and per Master&Expert. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support I seriously thought about opposing, but I've decided to support because 1. I really don't see any case being made that Jc37 would cause any major problems and 2. because I think it's totally unreasonable to oppose someone for "badgering people" in something that's supposed to be a discussion. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support for his excellent work as an admin. I hope he will serve as a good Bureaucrat as well -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 07:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support. I've had nothing but good interaction with Jc37, and have no reason to oppose. I've read through the opposes, and I don't find them persuasive - mainly, I'm convinced that Jc37 understands the RFA process and will not screw it up when doing crat work in that area. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support. Jc37 would be an excellent bureaucrat. (Unfortunately, this sounds like an insult—it seems strange to suggest that someone would have a knack for being "bureaucratic".) He's demonstrated good judgment as an admin, and has put in some years of good work at WP:CFD, which is an undertraversed area of WP. I don't see the reasons for opposing as convincing reasons to prevent him from becoming a bureaucrat. I have not agreed with his approach in every encounter I have had with the user, but that would be a terrible reason to oppose here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support The candidate will be a good bureaucrat: He has experienced a lot in editing Wikipedia, so it's time to handle the tools to him. Jedd Raynier wants to talk with you. 02:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support I think it would have been better to have waited a few months but, on reflection, it doesn't make sense to put the candidate through another RfB. Wikilife is hard enough as it is. (See my cancelled neutral below.)--regentspark (comment) 12:50, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support -- Fully support. Wagino 20100516 (talk) 13:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support no concerns. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 15:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support- Qualified. Dru of Id (talk) 17:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose[edit]
  1. Reluctant Oppose. I like Jc37 and like to support contributors who have been here a long while. On the other hand, I believe bureaucratship requests should be approved based on the best interests of the project, and I don't think the project is well served by this request for a number of reasons:
    1. I went through the candidate's contributions to RfA for the last three years. During that time, Jc37 has voted twice: 1 2, both opposes on RfAs ultimately approved by the community. The other interactions have involved votes retracted prior to close and the addition of boilerplate questions to individual RfAs. Since I went through Jc37's contributions manually, I may have missed a vote or two but believe the overall point stands that this is not a style of interaction at RfA characteristic of someone in touch with the community and committed to deep involvement in the adminship process.
    2. Looking at article contributions, I can't find any substantive edits (additions of substantial new text or significant improvement of existing text) other than some pop-culture edits very early in the edit history. Since the bureaucrat role has expanded in scope since its inception and is likely to continue to do so, I believe that prospective 'crats should be in touch with the roots of the project, which are in collaborative editing of articles.
    3. Jc37 is recently returned from a lengthy wikibreak, leading me to wonder about the timing of this request.
    4. Given that the candidate has limited interest in the more mechanical user rename work, and given the low prevalence of RfAs these days, I wonder whether there is useful work Jc37 would be able to do.
    The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi. While you are of course welcome to your interpretation of my edits, I would have to sincerely disagree with your assessment of them. In article space in particular. Without looking, I remember working collaboratively to get Peanuts towards GA. I've cleaned up articles of many types including Caspar Milquetoast, Big Beautiful Woman, Robin (comics), etc. Not to mention work on a myriad amount of List pages. Most recently I started a stub for a requested article on a particular episode of Family Ties.
    So I find your opinion of my edits rather surprising. - jc37 22:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I did note that you have edited some of the pop culture topics, which I believe characterizes the subject areas you enumerate. I believe my point stands, as do my other concerns. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    So what you're saying is that you have a problem with the "subject areas [I] enumerate"?
    Well, I'm sorry to hear that you apparently consider (by implication) subject areas such as comics, literature, film, and television (and whatever else you are grouping as "pop culture"), as not worthy subjects of editorial focus. I will respectfully disagree. Thank you for clarifying. (If in any way I'm misunderstanding you, please feel free to further clarify.) - jc37 03:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. Thank you, UninvitedCompany, for reminding me of those RfA contributions. Jc37 is the worst offender for posting unconstructive, tedious boilerplate questions at RfA. It would be preferable that his power at RfA is not increased. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Holy moly, I'm glad he skipped mine. Drmies (talk) 00:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I did think I would tend to support any competent RfB, but Axl and UninvitedCompany have raised really good points. I agree that your RfA opposes often leave something to be desired. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. The incessant lengthy boilerplate RfA questions indicate, to me, a shallow understanding of RfA and how a candidate should be evaluated. Very concerning, given that bureaucrats need to make decisions on the outcomes of RfAs in, sometimes, the most difficult of circumstances. Further, to have continued with the boilerplate questions after requests to desist, demonstrates a lack of connection with the community and concern for its views. That's disastrous for a 'crat. There's more. In this edit I very politely asked Jc37, for the second time, to withdraw, or at least reconsider, a false allegation he had made in a substantially controversial MfD close. Having not replied the first time for whatever reason, in response to the second request he archived the section with a rather thin excuse about advice elsewhere which did not relate to that specific request. It's not the direction the MfD was closed in that's the concern (though it was certainly controversial), it's the running away from a problem that he had caused another editor while carrying out an administrator task. Although this was considerably more than a year ago, I've not seen anything to convince me that there's been a significant change. And it's a problem - "Bureaucrats are expected to determine consensus in difficult cases and be ready to explain their decisions". We are cautious about giving people admin tools to begin with, and 'crat is a sufficiently more sensitive role that I'd hope to see a glowing record, not this sort of thing. If the admin and Wikipedia space actions were outstanding, then the generally lackluster mainspace contributions wouldn't be a problem; but that's not the case here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose Far below the standard of usual bureaucrats, and (at best) mediocre as an administrator, as has been better said and amply documented by others.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose An editor forum shopping ANI && AN lacks judgement. Nobody Ent 11:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh? I posted the same note to AN and AN/I because I saw someone who was apparently contacted by outreach and appeared confused about editing on Wikipedia, with the hopes that others might help. All too often new editors are treated to WP:RBI without help, and in this case it seemed to me that this was possibly a case of confusion rather than vandalism. So I thought having others aware might get more possible help (or at the very least more eyes on this). And I see now that User:Bwilkins has attempted to.
    All that aside, I would think calling posting to two noticeboards (and before anyone else had responded) "forum shopping" would seem to be a bit of a tough sell. YMMV of course. - jc37 11:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Weak Oppose The Uninvited Co brings up enough doubts to tip the scales --Guerillero | My Talk 17:51, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose - Though I value Jc's contributions to Wikipedia, the concerned raised by other users concern me. Posting the same set of questions about policy on every RfA for the past few months suggests an unhelpful attitude to RfA, which simply draw out textbook answers without helping the community effectively evaluate a user. He has continued to do this after many editors have asked him to stop. Additionally, he only has 5 months of recent experience, after a lengthy Wikibreak, which for me is insufficient for someone who will be making close calls and decisions based on community consensus. I get the feeling that, if someone is to be making close consensus calls, they need to have been active within the community for a while before that. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:11, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose Not much experience at RfA or any other bureaucrat-related area. I also don't feel he has the high level of judgement usually required of bureaucrats. Epbr123 (talk) 18:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You're of course welcome to your opinion on the latter, but what are you basing the former on? Not only do I have long experience with RfA, I have (co-)nominated several people for adminship, even co-nominating someone (successfully) this year. - jc37 18:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You have commented on relatively few RfAs, especially during the last few years, and the issue with the boilerplate questions also suggests a lack of experience. Epbr123 (talk) 19:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for clarifying your opinion. - jc37 19:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose. Primarily per UnivitedCo. I also share some of ItsZippy's concerns. -- Lord Roem (talk) 19:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose per UC, unfortunately. Jc's a great editor, but a yearlong wikibreak concerns me for someone wanting to be a bcrat. Perhaps the worst part of RFA is the question bombing, in hopes of tripping up a candidate to make a decision easier; it's overkill and completely unhelpful. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) - Ok, I've known you (Wizardman) a long time on wiki. And among many other things, I know you as someone who (like me) will happily discuss : ) - So let's please take this topic head on.
    (This may get lengthy, and I know lengthy discussion in the past has been sometimes moved to the talk page, but I strongly request that this not be. Several people have commented on this topic, and I so think it's directly relevant to the nomination.)
    First (in case there are those who may be unaware) one thing about rfA is that anyone can support/oppose for just about any reason as traditionally this is about how the commenters may trust the individual with the particular tools under request. That's been a long accepted common practice at RfA.
    Well, several years back this started to come out in a FLOOD of ridiculous questions to the candidates. Questions which had little to nothing to do with adminship/bureaucratship (the tools or the related responsibilities). Questions similar to: "What's your favourite colour?"; "Do you like foo TV show"; "Who would win, Superman or the Hulk?" and so on. Also at that time, the various shades of on-wiki drama prevalent at the time started to really come out in the questions. Or demands to release personal info (there was a small drama about underage editors being admins) or demands to do or not do certain things even if approved for the tools ("Even if you get the tools, you'll never protect a page, or you'll restrict yourself to 1RR, etc"). And finally the vast amounts of "gotcha"-style questions. Designed to trip up a candidate, often with no possible "right" answer.
    So in the midst of this, to try to be proactive (and partially just to see if it was possible : ) - I set out to try to create a set of questions which followed the suggested advice concerning questions at the time: That the questions deal solely, directly (and more importantly neutrally) with the tools and responsibilities of adminship.
    I'd like to think I succeeded. I'm listing them here to save you from needing to click the link:
    Optional questions from jc37
    In order to illustrate that you have at least a passing knowledge/understanding of the policies and processes in relation to the tools and responsibilities that go along with adminship, please answer the following questions:
    • 5. Please describe/summarise why and when it would be appropriate for:
    • 5a. ...an editor to be blocked (or unblocked)?
    • A:
    • 5b. ...a page to be protected (or unprotected)?
    • A:
    • A:
    • A:
    • 6. How does one determine consensus? And how may it be determined differently on a talk page discussion, an XfD discussion, and a DRV discussion.
    • A:
    • 7. User:JohnQ leaves a message on your talk page that User:JohnDoe and User:JaneRoe have been reverting an article back and forth, each to their own preferred version. What steps would you take?
    • A:
    • 8. Why do you wish to be an administrator?
    • A:
    So looking at them, These are all questions which others have consistently and repeatedly posted to RfA. "Why and When is it appropriate to block/protect/speedy?"; "Explain how you'd apply IAR" (in general or to some particular situation of the questioner); "How does one determine consensus" (or the related: look at these (sometimes hypothetical, almost always very complex) discussions, how would you close them?");
    I then tried to develop a single hypothetical, trying to hone it down to its most basic form. "How would you deal with this situation?". No pit traps, a straight forward edit war question. Something that most admins are at least asked about even if they tend to choose to not get involved in such.
    And finally, in my experience and opinion question 1 didn't really ask the candidate directly enough "why" they would like to be an admin.
    Every one of these questions are solidly founded in policy. No pit traps, no "gotcha".
    Are they a fixed set of questions? yes. Personally I think that it would be nice if they were standard for all candidates. That way the candidate could answer then at their leisure before transcluding the nom. And if it turns out that in the process of answering them it becomes a learning experience for the candidate, all the better, I would think.
    Have some editors not liked the questions being posted? Sure. In RfA, everyone has an opinion, and everyone is allowed to (positively) express that opinion. And by the way, as a Wikipedian myself, when commenting in a discussion, that goes for me as well.
    As noted already, any signed in editor may support or oppose any particular nom for pretty much whatever internal criteria they may have. And we allow editors to ask questions to help in that personal decision.
    Incidentally, none of this of course has anything directly to do with being a bureaucrat, as closing is determining the consensus of others, not adding your own (as is commonly said, if you want to comment/"!vote" in a discussion then do so, don't be the closer). But even so, as it's now been brought up a few times in relation to question of trusting me with the tools/responsibilities, I think it's probably worth discussing this.
    So now with all that lengthy information: What is it about these questions is it that you (Wizardman) currently find so troubling? I sincerely would like to know. As I believe you know, I welcome open, honest, positive discussion amongst Wikipedians. And I don't think the fact that I'm requesting some tools to help out should prevent such discussion. - jc37 05:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I see your point looking over everything again. Admittedly, the truly ridiculous questions of yore was something I pushed out of my mind long ago and had forgotten about. When it comes to RfA questions, I'm not really a fan of adding in ones where a user can basically cut and paste from a policy and answer it without having to change anything. For the first couple questions, it feels like you could do that; I could take the blocking policy or protection policy, cut out a couple spots, and answer those questions. If the questions are meant to make sure the candidate has actually read them, then fair enough. I'm all for questions if they were to really help understand the candidate more, but when a group of questions mostly just ask if you're reading policies, then it's not the best use of time on either side. The last question is similar to the first one as well (the one asking what you'd use the tools for). The questions could certainly be far worse, and we've both seen them. Then again, I'm from the era where the only questions really added were after editing concerns were found and questions were formed out of that; now people just oppose instead. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 23:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair point, and at face value I wouldn't strongly disagree. That said, my experience has actually been (surprisingly) contrary to that view. Maybe it's that they don't want to bother to read the policy page (or just (inappropriately as it often turns out) feel self assured that they know "everything" already) and "wing it", and in other cases, it really felt like the candidate had a personal asserted opinion of what they felt policy/common practice should be rather than what it was. (And in one case I seem to recall - belligerently so.)
    And something that's not been brought up yet are those who have appreciated the questions. Answers to the questions I've posted have indeed made the difference in RfAs, both in showing the candidate's readiness, and other times showing potential issues with the candidate's understanding, and so on. But note: I really really don't want to try to go through every RfA I've posted questions to, linking to where the questions were directly noted by others as affecting their "vote". So please please don't ask me : )
    Besides that, to try to address your other concern - my gaps in editing. Most of it was for personal reasons or lack of internet or of a working computer, though I do recall intentionally taking some time away from Wikipedia at one point. If one allows it, work and family and other "real life" concerns (what's that big glowing orb up in that sky place?) really can actually take up much of one's time. (Nothing wrong with occasionally taking some time to smell the flowers : )
    So, maybe you can answer something for me. In the UC's (and others') comments, I got the impression that something insidious could be drawn from someone coming back from an extended wikibreak asking for extra tools. I've tried to imagine several scenarios, but I just seriously can't think of anything other than maybe a compromised account (which I'm clearly not - if for no other reason than few could ever come even close to duplicating this level of verbosity : )
    But besides that, 3 months is what I've often heard as the common general minimum of activity for asking for extra tools. (I've been back editing at least 4 - though truth be told, I was "lurking" around longer than that) And we cheerfully give adminship tools back to admins coming back from an extended wikibreak. (Excepting "under a cloud" and such.) It's uncontroversial. So why's this an issue now? I'll freely admit: I don't understand. - jc37 04:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Regretful Oppose per UC, I get the feeling that he's a good editor overall, but I think his judgment level is not up to the high standards we associate with bureaucrats. Canuck89 (converse with me) 04:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose as it would be inappropriate to have as a bureaucrat someone whose involvement in RfA has raised concerns. The weak knowledge of other areas of bureaucrat responsibility mean there is no balancing mitigation in favour of candidate being able to contribute positively there. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose I find insufficient supporting evidence that this user needs extra tools at this time. Bureaucrats decide RfAs, and this user has not recently been participating in RfAs; bureaucrats rename users, and this user has not been active on rename boards; and they do bot stuff, and this user does not do bot stuff. Jc37 writes that he is "submitting this RfB to the community because I'd like to help" but then the kind of help that he says he likes to do is unrelated to the bureaucrat toolset. I would be happy to support him in the future after he spends only a little more time on the bureaucrat-related boards. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose - after November 2010, jc37 has made contributions to 8 RfAs, all of which display his usual 'optional questions' explained above. These were all in the last 4 months, and the first of these was a co-nomination. In 3 of the remaining 7 RfAs, the he made no vote or comment on the candidate's suitability for the role after asking the questions (here, here and here, though in one of these the candidate did not answer jc37's optional questions). In the 4 RfAs jc37 did vote in, 2 of these (a neutral and an oppose vote) made no reference to the optional question's he asked and did not comment on the quality of the answers (here and here). Both succeeded. In one of the remaining 2 RfAs where jc37 did refer to his questions in his vote, he opposed the candidate before they had a chance to answer his optional questions ([2]), though shortly afterwards he struck the oppose to allow the candidate to answer the questions. Later in that RfA he stated that "...regardless of whether they answer my questions, I sincerely don't want to imagine the editor with the ability to block others, or worse - protect a page" which confirmed that he wasn't asking the questions in order to determine the way in which he would vote, though he never actually voted after he struck his oppose. In the other RfA where he made reference to his questions, he eventually voted Support, after submitting the candidate to a sort of mini-second-RfA (see [3]). This was the only RfA support in the last ~18months (bizarrely, he didn't place a vote for the candidate he co-nominated). My reasons for opposing are similar to UC above (though UC appears to have made some errors with statistics, and I may well have done myself), but mainly I find the recent activity at RfA both sparse and unproductive. Asking lengthy questions of candidates and then seemingly ignoring them in the majority of cases (or, at least, not providing helpful feedback in the majority of cases) doesn't seem productive to me. Mato (talk) 22:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As someone who was co-nominated by jc37 (ironically, Wizardman was one of the other co-noms) I can provide an answer to that. Jc37 considers the nomination itself as implied support; he wouldn't nominate someone he didn't support, after all. And yes, I got the questions as well. I didn't have a problem with that, as the questions were commonly asked at the time, and they helped cut down on some of the nonsense questions that were being asked by directing attention towards the candidate's attitudes towards admin tasks, rather than "Ginger or Mary Ann?" Horologium (talk) 22:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Mato. Thank you very much for taking the time for going through my edit history. Editors who do that at RfA garner well-earned respect from me. (And no offence to The UC is meant or implied whatsoever, he did make it clear that he was doing it manually, and may have missed some. Though I will say that I feel better it being confirmed that my memory isn't that bad - as I did remember participating in a bit more than just 2 RfAs : )
    Anyway, I'd like to try to clear up what I think is a misconception of my response (the RfA response you linked to). That was somewhat of a contextual response (needed to be read in context of other commenters) that was attempting to comment on someone's suggestion that the candidate was "refusing" to answer my questions.
    As an aside, but probably worth noting: I think we all are aware that questions for a candidate are optional.
    Anyway, my comment was supposed to say (or at least imply): "As things stand now (if there isn't something that the candidate says or does to help convince me otherwise, and great answers to the questions would go a decent way towards that), then..."
    And speaking of context, it might be worth mentioning that in that same edit, I suggested that others shouldn't oppose based upon my comments: "And I'll caveat with "It could just be me". So please don't oppose on my account. But as things stand right now, I wouldn't trust the candidate with the tools. And I have concerns about how newbies and anyone not better versed in policy and guidelines would stand up to this seeming gaming of things. And regardless of whether they answer my questions, I sincerely don't want to imagine the editor with the ability to block others, or worse - protect a page...".
    And "imagine" in that context was meant to mean "think about in my head the future scenarios of...".
    The other things I should note is why I post questions before commenting: it varies based upon the situation. As you seem to have gone through some of my comments in RfAs, you may have noted that I have mentioned how diligent I am in going through a candidate's contribution history. Sometimes I can spend days just sifting through histories, especially on candidates who have large edit counts. Not to mention that I'm that person who can get lost/distracted in the joys of link clicking from page to page. (I used to go from word to word in those giant old reference tomes as a kid.) I love information and learning, which may be part of why I enjoy Wikipedia : ) So sometimes I leave the questions for them to answer while I'm looking. Sometimes I have a rough impression about the candidate due to maybe past seeing the candidate interact with others somewhere or they may have edited some page I've watched or whatever. (I read a LOT. If wikipedia logged an edit to every page I read, there's a decent chance I'd be top of the charts lol) Anyway, if that impression isn't quite as positive as I might like, the questions may help clarify or even change my mind. Which has happened more than once. (Though I'll admit that I can think of at least 2 RfAs where my impression was to stay as oppose, but I just didn't have the heart to, so I moved to/stayed at neutral). And there have been many times where by the time I finished going through their contribs they have received a TON of "votes" which match with what mine would be, so I often don't bother to add to the pile on. The community has shown its trust (or lack thereof), so pretty much little need for me to add my voice at that point. (Though I think I have anyway a couple times.) And finally, there have been times that an RfA was closed before I could comment (usually RfAs where I was initially late to the table).
    Anyway, I hope this helps clarify. - jc37 04:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (addendum, per "providing some helpful feedback") sometimes I did that on the candidate's talk page. Though in some cases, I have just "let things drop" (in deference to/understanding that sometimes a candidate, in particular one whose request was unsuccessful, may not want to talk about the request for awhile). - jc37 10:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your response, in particular for clarifying on my quote...I see now that it was taken out of context somewhat. I disagree with some of the above though - I think voting or commenting is especially important after asking questions and that adding a Support vote is important even when Support is overwhelming - I'm sure many candidates view individual supports on different levels dependent on who placed the vote. Mato (talk) 21:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Valid opinion. And as I said above, at times my responses to a person's answers to the questions may happen (at least partially) on their talk page. But that aside, I see an RfA as not that different than when viewing an RfC or some discussion on VP or AN(/I). If I feel that whatever I was going to comment has already been said, I may still comment, but I'm just as likely to not. The world is just fine without me adding in "me too" : )
    But anyway, is there anything else you would like clarified? And are you still wishing to oppose based upon the clarifications above? - jc37 21:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose for all the obvious reasons, some of which have been elucidated above. Malleus Fatuorum 11:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose because closing RfAs is one of the tasks performed by bureaucrats, and judging from the asking of boilerplate questions and the explanation above, I disagree with the candidate's views on the way RfAs should work. wctaiwan (talk) 02:54, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose The candidate seems perfect for WP:CHU and I do like his approach to carefully moving into a subject matter seeking guidance. But I am uneasy with the "supervote" issue brought up in an answer earlier. I expect a bureaucrat to respect consensus - by all means contributing to it when he disagrees. It is a pity, because I do feel we will need more hands on deck. Agathoclea (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    May I ask what "supervote" issue you're talking about? - jc37 14:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The situation you refered to in question 16. The trouble is finding the balance between "doing the right thing" and "acting on concensus". An admin can often act on IAR if he can make it plausible that it was to the general benefit of the project. 99% of those cases never get mentioned again - rightly so. Others cause drama despite being right or because they have been wrong. A bureaucrat is in the unfortuante position similar to a head of state in that he has to sign off what ever parliament decides with the added disadvantage that he has to read that consensus himself. The only benefit here is that he can choose to leave it to someone else. I might be sensitive as I have seen a number of "supervotes" in my time here and am particular alert to cases that have an internal connection. Agathoclea (talk) 14:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I realise that this is merely my opinion, but I think you'll be hard pressed to find someone else who is less of a strong proponent of consensus. I realise that that may be merely seen as a self-assertion. Except that I've been that for a very long time (even to the point of being told that I was tilting at windmills in regards to liking discussion and consensus).
    I don't believe, even now, that that was anywhere close to being a "supervote". I explained the close on my talk page (linked above). What about it causes you to feel the way you appear to? - jc37 15:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all I want to say that at ANI you handled the issue exemplary. Indicating your reasoning in relation to the core issues. But it was still your reasoning, which DRV later did overturn. You could have been right but you weren't. The core problem is that we tend to get touchy when it comes to subjects that are related to our community and - depending which school of thought we belong to -- try to find the faintest excuses to force either deletion or keeping (promote/not promote), which is why such events always turn into more drama than they are worth. On the other hand your reasoned approach might still sway me to go neutral. Agathoclea (talk) 17:58, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your comments.
    "The core problem is that we tend to get touchy when it comes to subjects that are related to our community and - depending which school of thought we belong to -- try to find the faintest excuses to force either deletion or keeping (promote/not promote), which is why such events always turn into more drama than they are worth." - To start with I want to state firmly and clearly that this statement in no way (and I mean zero way) describes me. (As should, I hope, be very clear from my comments in this discussion, at least.)
    As for the circumstances of Q 16:
    Let's first look at this from a little less depth: I neutrally closed a discussion according to policy. I was asked to explain my close. I did. At least one person disagreed. I didn't feel their arguements justified overturning. Therefore, subsequently, one of the pages went to DRV. That's how the system is supposed to work.
    But now let's look a touch closer:
    Setting aside the rather nice things he said about me in his comment above, one point I'd like to bring up from User:Mike Selinker's support: "...and willing to do the difficult and sometimes unpleasant things.".
    That's what I did that day. I went to close a long open MfD, where (in hindsight) others had apparently avoided closing it to avoid the possible forthcoming "drahmahs". (There's obviously several broader contexts to what was going on at the time on Wikipedia, that really have no need to be rehashed here, as they had nothing whatsoever to do with me.)
    As for the DRV, only a talk page was nominated. (Something I didn't spot during most of the DRV. Imagine discussing the merits of the close of a discussion concerning a page when only a G8'd associated-talk-page was nominated.) And even the close of the DRV was pretty much: "Nobody really cares at this point". And no one came to comment at the AN/I either. Finally fastily put it out of its misery after being open a few weeks.
    Honestly, in hindsight, the whole thing really was just this side of farcical.
    So was that bad judgement on my part? Not hiding under a rock doing what some others might think is the politically saavy thing to do? I suppose some might think so, but I don't.
    As I asked and said in my A/I post: "... (a) whether fear of on-wiki drama should be a reason to not do what we would normally do. - Needless to say, I strongly oppose "a". Any sort of fear tactics or attempts at bullying, even if seemingly passive, should always be denied, and never considered acceptable or appropriate."
    I honestly believe that we shouldn't let fear (of potential subsequent drama) stop us from doing what needs doing. (performing tasks, following policy, and so on) It's funny, such situations typically mean I get barnstars or messsages of support. But occasionally also simultaneously, jeers and/or accusations from those who disagree with a particular close. (Though things really are a bit quieter these days.) The simple fact is that on Wikipedia (like anywhere), not everyone agrees in discussions. And it's very simple to shout "admin abuse" regardless of the actual validity of an action. As I note on my talk page. At times it really does seem that Three men make a tiger. Essentially, I'm not what some others have said I am. But how does one prove that? (Especially in a typewritten environment lol) I suppose I could come up with other examples ad infinitum. But if someone doesn't believe what they see, how will more of the same convince them?
    So anyway, I would sincerely be interested in what you feel about the above. - jc37 19:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose - Per above, badgering opposes, boilerplate questions, lack of diplomatic skills. — GabeMc (talk) 23:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  20. CHU is easy business. As a current or former bureaucrat on commons, meta and a couple other small projects, I can say that most any monkey could do that part. Bots are more of the same. RfA is the only part where it gets hard, and I simply don't feel Jc37 has yet developed the skillset for dealing with it. It's untrue that bureaucrats only push buttons at RfA; they very often have to simply grab the buck, slam it down, and decide who's right and who's wrong. Of course, this requires extensive experience in an extremely wide range of activities on the project, not least of which would be article creation. I have no problem nominating users who have never heard of WP:FA for adminship, but RfB is a different issue. I simply don't think the candidate in question (that sounds so impersonal) is comfortable in the article writing sector of the wiki at all, and that bothers me. This comes in addition to dubious participation in previous RfAs, which I won't rehash. For the record, opposing based on the candidate's readiness to engage voters is ridiculous. Ability to discuss and disagree in the face of pressure is one of the strongest traits I look for in any candidate for special flags, because it shows that he acknowledges this page's status as a discussion rather than a ballot. Best of luck to the Jc37. Juliancolton (talk) 01:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Given that RfA evaluation is one of the key roles of a bureaucrat, I'd expect candidates to demonstrate a solid understanding of exactly what RfA is evaluating. Unfortunately I don't get that impression from the evidence presented of jc37's interactions at RfA, nor in his responses here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose per UninvitedCompany. Their links show that (In my opinion) this editor is a little too impulsive for bureaucratship. Minima© (talk) 07:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral[edit]
  1. Neutral - Clearly trustworthy user but too much focus on the intricacies of policies. Policies are helpful to some extent, but harmful as well. As they are ever expanding they take a toll on users and direct efforts away from article editing with the time they take to argue over and discuss. Like all non article building activities, the time spent on them should be minimized while gaining as much of their positive effects as possible. You'll do fine, but please keep that in mind. - Taxman Talk 17:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Disagree with Q9 from a sentimentalist viewpoint. Philosophically, I consider Wikipedia's goal to be encyclopedia first and community second, but a barnstar contains emotional value and treats a user with dignity. I have never appreciated the way most community members have reduced certain editors to mere numbers, vandal or not. And typos are inconsequential; they rarely detract from the encyclopedic experience. Perhaps more importantly, I have, on more than one occasion, been inclined to ask this user to refrain from asking more than two boring questions at RfA. I think RfA should invite creative answers; textbook questions have textbook answers, and textbook mistakes are easily resolved. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:47, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not positive (and please let me know if I'm misunderstanding), but I think you may have misunderstood my answer in Q9. I believe I totally agree with you. The only reason I answered as I eventually did, is because the IP (if indeed a vandal - I was accepting the premise of the question) represented an issue which presumably (unfortunately) necessitated immediate action. - jc37 04:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand your answer. However, I disagree that most vandalism requires immediate action. (Although, that is because I tend to disagree with the manner in which we generally handle IP vandalism, which is by reducing the user to just a number to be blocked.) Regardless, Q9 is hardly a concern for me in comparison to your questions at RfA. But that is also a bit of an ideological disagreement. Good luck. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral. Seems a lovely enough bloke; I'm just having some trouble understanding what he actually intends to do with this. But whatever. -— Isarra ༆ 04:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral While he is a great editor and I see him around; I'm not pleased with answers to question #6 by Scottywong. He did not properly answer the questions. Dipankan (Have a chat?) 06:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Before anyone misreads this, the quantity of crat actions doesn't matter. But I'm not sure what jc37 intends to do in any quantity whatsoever. By process of elimination from the answers to question 6 I assume we're talking about changing usernames and closing RfAs. Changing usernames is a case of literally applying a clear set of "rules" (for want of a less ambiguous word); closing nigh-on unanimous RfAs is a procedural matter. That leaves judging close RfAs. I'm not opposing because jc37 has demonstrated an understanding of consensus, but I'm not supporting because I have very little idea how jc37 would apply that to tight RfA calls. The only way you can really demonstrate that is to give opinions on tight RfAs as and when they happen. —WFC— 11:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi. What specifically would you like me to clarify? I would be happy to try to help assuage your concerns. - jc37 11:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with some of the points made in the oppose section (hence being here). But I guess the simplest way of assuaging my concerns would be to refute User:UninvitedCompany's first point. —WFC— 12:13, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure which parts of his first point you're referring to, but first, please check this.
    Second, closing a discussion, no matter how "close" or "contentious" it may be, does not mean making a "supervote". Our job as closers is to assess the consensus of others. (I defined consensus in at least one of the questions above.)
    Third, that aside, if you are wondering about what my personal criteria is for personally supporting in an RfA, please look here.
    And finally, I've been a very active reader at RfA, and active in commenting in WT:RFA (as well as many associated surveys, polls and the like related to RfA). So I would have to disagree with User:UninvitedCompany's assertions. (However, they are, of course, welcome to their opinions.)
    Is there anything else you feel I'm missing in your concerns? - jc37 12:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think UninvitedCompany's first point is quite clear, and while I respect you for not seeking conflict (and encourage you to continue in that vein), I think you need to explain why UC is wrong on that point. You are an admin who does a good job with the tools, and have decided to run for good faith reasons. For that reason I will not be switching my position to oppose, but equally because I continue to agree with UC, I can't support.

    This will probably be my last post in this RfB. I do wish you all the best though, and my parting advice is that if you can directly refute the basis of UninvitedCompany's first point, this RfB will be much more likely to succeed – that user's reasons seem to be the key issue among opposers. —WFC— 20:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    (Moved to support) I don't particularly like red-linked talk pages. My76Strat (talk) 23:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a bit confused by what you mean by this. Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:57, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize for the ambiguity. It occurs to me this RfB deserves a corresponding talk page with edit stats and all. That being my only peeve is not enough to oppose, but sufficient for me to withhold support; for now.My76Strat (talk) 01:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I added the stats. Just to let you know, you could have easily added them. They are usually added by one of the first few editors who shows up to the discussion; however, it appears that it hasn't been occurring recently. It isn't on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Vibhijain either. I'd add it, but I literally need to leave right now. Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral. Do I trust the candidate to close RFAs appropriately? Yes, I'd say so. But that's not really the issue here - the request for more crats primarily concerned username changes, which is the main bureaucratic workload. Jc37 is correct that the request would be declined because the other-project user has been active within the last year, however the user who holds the claim to a SUL is the person with the most edits under that name, not another individual requesting that name. I appreciate Jc37's inclination to defer to another bureaucrat, however I feel that bureaucrats must have a very clear understanding of usernames because getting it wrong could have negative consequences for someone on another project. Looking through Jc37's contributions, I found only two edits to pages related to username changing, and none of the blocks he's made concern usernames. I am therefore neutral due to the candidate's positive contributions and general decorum, but cannot support and perhaps have a small measure of opposition due to the candidate's hazy understanding of (global) username policy and scant history of dealing with it. WilliamH (talk) 14:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral I have no reason to believe that Jc37 will be anything other than a perfectly reasonable bureaucrat but, because I do have some, mostly mild, concerns, I'm going to plant my flag in the neutral territory. My main concern is the lack of recent activity, particularly admin activity much of which is centered around deletions in the "pop culture" (for lack of a better term!) area. Nothing wrong with that but I would prefer to see an admin who willingly wades into controversy with the aim of clearing it up. It would be perfectly fine with me if Jc37 does become a bureaucrat but think it would have been better had he had a few more months of activity under his belt before putting up this request.--regentspark (comment) 13:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm.
    This discussion, may or may not be something you are looking for.
    Regardless, thank you for your kind comments. I hope you're having a great day : ) - jc37 13:43, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral I'm kinda mixed here per above. Baseball Watcher 00:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral Fine answers to most of the questions above and the user has a good experience in administration related activities too, but a number of issues given in the oppose section are seems convincing too. But still nonetheless if they have the potential to become a bureaucrat and address everyone's concerns fully then it is always welcome as more and more active users are always needed in all areas on our fast growing project. All the best Jc37. TheGeneralUser (talk) 02:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/Jc37&oldid=1144521032"