Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jeffrey Mall 2

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

Jeffrey Mall 2

[edit]

Final (27/19/6); closed at 17:00, 7th June 2010 (UTC) by ϢereSpielChequers

Nomination

[edit]

Jeffrey Mall (talk · contribs) – Fellow Wikipedians, it is my great pleasure to nominate Jeffrey Mall for the mop. This is not Jeffrey's first run, he ran last November but failed to get consensus. At the time I was only a weak support myself as I had concerns that he was still quite a new editor. Fortunately he has decided to stay with us, and I think has continued to develop as a Wikipedian. As it is now over six months since his first run and over a year since he started editing, I would like to submit him for your reconsideration.

Jeffrey was already a useful vandal fighter when he first ran. He has since developed in a couple of directions, as a gnome wikifying and improving articles, and as a new page patroller. His edits are largely in article space or user talkspace, indicative I think of the sort of useful, communicative and uncontroversial admin that I believe Jeffrey Mall is now more than ready to become. ϢereSpielChequers 12:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you WereSpielChequers. I accept. :-) Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 13:48, 6 June 2010 (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 administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: Since my last RfA, I've gotten into CSD a bit more, so I'd like to spend some time over at CAT:CSD, particularly in the G10 and G3 departments, as I see both candidate types regularly, sitting around, waiting to be deleted and I believe I may be able to help out with the CSD backlog in that respect, although I intend to work primarily with vandalism and attack pages I'll also help out with other CSD types if an extra admin is needed.
Anti-vandalism
Although I tend to perform less anti-vandalism rounds nowadays than I did 6 or so months ago, I'm still interested in helping out over at AIV and with anti-vandalism in general, I tend to hang out at AIV sometimes, well actually, fairly regularly watching reports being dealt with or even dealing with some reports myself! (To the best of my ability without access to the block tool, that is) If I'm not there to report a user or IP who's been regularly vandalizing I'll be responding to reports already there, watching reports being dealt with or removing users or IPs who've been blocked when the helperbots are down.
General maintenance
And last but not least I'd like to help clear the Temporary Wikipedia userpages backlog and assist in granting the rollback tool to users who've shown knowledge of Wikipedia's vandalism policy and some good experience dealing with vandalism in the past. I may also venture out into RfPP somewhere along the lines but I won't go jumping in at the deep end here, although I'll tread softly at RfPP to begin with, I'll still be protecting pages I may stumble across that have evidence of relatively recent and excessive disruption.
Short but sweet answer
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: In my opinion, my best contributions to Wikipedia would have to be my work Wikifying lonely articles in need of attention. A few months ago I completed one of the biggest Wikification and cleanup projects I've been involved in so far during my time here on Wikipedia: Acoustic resonance spectroscopy, an article I found difficult to understand and whose subject I had no prior knowledge of whatsoever, the article had a very confusing footnote format but, in the end, I managed to cleanup, Wikify and perform some slight copyediting to the page to finally produce this which I was quite happy with. If you'd like to see more examples of my work with Wikiproject Wikify, I maintain a sporadically updated list of articles I've worked on, whose end results I personally, am most proud of. I'm also quite proud of a list that I created not too long ago where I did some fairly strenuous source gathering and formatting. As I don't like to and am not very good at (In my opinion) writing content, the only serious content creation work I do on Wikipedia involves lists as they don't require a whole lot of writing yet still contribute content-wise to the 'pedia's ever growing index.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: The only real conflict I've been in would be this one which is barely a conflict in itself. The basic structure of it was that I'd moved a recently created page on a footballer named Iro Curmi (footballer born 1963) away from disambiguation in its title as there was no other footballer with the same name (or so I thought), I had run some searches but from what I found, I thought that multiple documents were all referring to the same Iro Curmi, so I moved the page, however it turned out that there were indeed two footballers with the name "Iro Curmi" so the page was moved back, over redirect, to its original title, I'd already discussed this with the page's author and we agreed that the redirect (left behind after my page move) was no longer needed and as there wasn't a page on the second "Iro Curmi" a dab page would be fairly pointless as one of the two links that would appear on it would be red, as such I requested the redirect be deleted per R3 as an implausible typo, a CSD, admittedly, with a hint of IAR as it's not totally implausible but would prevent any future confusion from readers if it were to be deleted now, if I were an admin at the time I would have simply suppressed the redirect during the move but the admin who dealt with the CSD in the end disagreed with my rationale for deletion and so declined the speedy deletion. I dealt with this conflict the same way I've dealt with every other minor conflict over editing I've experienced on the 'pedia, through discussion with the parties involved, although the redirect wasn't deleted in the end, I'm happy to have been able to walk away from the conflict knowing I'd gotten somewhere at least, even if it wasn't the way I'd originally wanted to go with the page.
Additional optional question from Tommy2010
4. What is the most powerful administrative tool in your opinion? Why do you believe this and how should you go about using it?
A: In my opinion the most powerful tool is either page protection or Special:Block. Page protection if applied ro restrict editing and page moves by anyone except sysops will limit the number of people able to edit or move the page from potentially millions of users (anonymous or otherwise) to around 1,800 administrators on the english Wikipedia, if not page protection then it would probably have to be the access to the block form as blocking whole ranges incorrectly can have detrimental effects. I can't ever see myself blocking ranges to be honest with you, as I lack the technical knowledge to do so and as such will be leaving this to the admins willing to make these difficult blocks. As for page protection I can't see myself protecting pages with the sysop-only settings any time soon, these protection settings are typically only used for edit-warring and high visibility pages and templates, as I don't participate at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring and tend to avoid areas where content disputes are active as much as possible, I can only see myself using the sysop-only protection settings for the latter case and not anytime soon.
Additional optional question from Boing! said Zebedee
5. So, what's your take on BLP policy? (Someone had to ask)
A: The BLP policy is a very good, solid, policy in my opinion. I was just one of the many, many editors who voiced their opinions and commented on the proposals not too long ago at RfC in regards to unreferenced BLPs, and was one of those who supported User:David Gerard's views (among others) who proposed a type of "sticky prod", as it were, for newly created unreferenced BLPs. I'd say we're handling BLPs and enforcing the BLP policy nowadays much better than we were last year. In the 6 or 7 months that have passed since my first RfA I've found myself in areas where the BLP policy had to be enforced and found myself taking action against edits which potentially violated the biographies of living persons policy. I hope that sharing my opinion of the policy here and the diffs I've supplied will give a little more insight into my level of understanding of the BLP policy which I believe was one of, if not, the primary concern at my first RfA.
Additional optional question from Tommy2010
6. You are patrolling the recent changes and you see a brawl break out between another administrator and a new user over an article they are both working on. The administrator, in your opinion, is being blatantly rude, unhelpful and overall biting to the point where you feel a block is necessary to prevent further damage to the encyclopedia. Do you block the sysop in this situation? Why or why not?
A: No. I tend to avoid directly getting involved in controversial situations such as this, even if I felt the admin required blocking, I wouldn't be the one to block themSee the summary for Q12, if I were to block the admin in question directly, I think things could easily get much worse as I've seen all too well what a controversial admin action such as this can accomplish and it's not pretty. I may simply talk to the admin either by email or on their talk page and tell them that the way they're acting is totally unacceptable but it really depends on the circumstances, if I feel the need to, I'll make a post at ANI to discuss the issue with others and that way we can work out the appropriate action to take against said admin (if any).
Additional questions from Suomi Finland
7. There was an election for new checkusers and oversighters. The ballot was secret, unlike this RFA. One checkuser was elected. The others failed to be elected. Some people want to appoint some of them anyway. Others say that changing the rules of the election after an election is not good. There have been other suggestions, like temporary appointment and a new election. What is your opinion? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Checkuser_and_oversighter_selection
A: I can see how changing the "rules" soon after an election took place could be seen as controversial, but if the current election process isn't working then something has to be done about it, although having said that, there is a possibility that the reason the election process no longer works is that users' expectations and standards of and for the granting of users access to the restricted checkuser and oversight interfaces have risen over time as both checkusers and oversights are not only trusted and expected to use the checkuser and oversight tools within policy but have access to information from the database that shouldn't be publicly accessable and as such requires a very secure account and a very trustworthy individual to handle such tools, therefore it would be necessary to place users interested in having access to these restricted interfaces under intense scrutiny in order to make sure that the user will indeed use the checkuser or oversight tools within policy and will never abuse either of them.
8. If someone wrote a valid, constructive comment, but this was removed by someone citing "disruptive" even though it was a calmly written, seemingly valid comment, would you block that person that removed the comment? Is it vandalism? Or should one just accept the fact that comments were removed? What if someone removed "support" votes in someone else's RFA and you were an admin?
A: No. Simply removing a comment doesn't justify a block especially if a sensible rationale of any kind is supplied in the edit summary. Good faith should always be assumed and as such I wouldn't even revert the edit, I would however leave a note on the user's talk page requesting clarification of the removal of the comment. I would do the same for any type of !vote in an RfA, this changes however, if the user or IP who removed the comment has been actively vandalizing and just decided to randomly remove the comment citing "disruptive" in an attempt to cause disruption.
Additional question from HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?
9. This is as follow up to Q6 above. Would your actions in that scenario if the party behaving unacceptably was an established, respected editor but not an administrator and would it change again if they were relatively new with only a few edits?
A. As an established editor I would have expected them to already be aware of our behavioural guidelines and policies, specifically Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, depending on the severity of the user's actions, a block may be needed in order to prevent any further damage, which, depending on the user's history with us (including their block log) would hopefully only span a few hours, if I were to indeed need to do this, I would however, also request a review of the block at ANI.
Additional question from Mkativerata
10. How would you deal with these two speedy deletion nominations? [1] [2]
A. Both have been tagged as A7 articles yet neither of them could be appropriately deleted per A7 of the criteria as they both claim some degree of significance in one way or another, I would have declined both of them, if push came to shove either article could at any time be either proposed for deletion or be brought in for discussion, having said that, nowadays #1 would have to be BLP prodded if sources couldn't be found.
Additional optional question from Boing! said Zebedee
11. Can I ask for a bit of clarification on Q8? It sounds like you're saying that if one editor removes another editor's "valid, constructive comment", from a Talk page or RfA, then that should not be reverted. If that's what you're saying, then I'd find that rather strange - it's always seemed to me that refactoring someone else's comments in any way, unless it is to counter a clear breach of the rules, is very much a no-no and should be reverted. (I have, in fact, myself reverted a number of such removals, and have issued {{Uw-tpv1}} warnings). Any further comments would be appreciated.
A: Removal of constructive, valid comments can be reverted of course, the above example is just a bit of insight into what I would do personally, it's just that nowadays I'd rather talk about it beforehand so as to avoid unnecessarily reverting a valid edit.
Aditional optional question from White Shadows stood on the edge
12. This is a follow-up from Q6 and Q9. If say HJ Mitchell is the admin who is biteing and attacking a newbie and if he could be blocked in a non-contraversial stance if he was a regular rollbacker, you'd you block him? You earlier said that you would bring the case up to ANI. If that is the case then if I were the one biteing and attacking, would I get the same "trial by jury" as HJ would or would you block me on the spot for WP:NPA's and violation of WP:Bite?
A: A block of any established editor will always have some degree of controversy surrounding it, though it really depends on the severity of the particular case, I'd only block you or any other established editor if I thought it was 100% necessary, a single, one-off personal attack against a new editor does not automatically warrant a block however, but a good talking to, yes, recurring personal attacks at any particular editor over a period of time is another story however, as blocking wasn't implimented to punish users but to protect the encyclopedia and its editors. As stated above I would still request a review of the block to see where others stand on the situation however.
I'm sorry for draging this out but you seem to have dodged my question a bit so I'll re-word it for you :) If HJ has been rude and attacking for not one instance but enough to warant a block based solely off of policy would you block him? Now If I (a non-admin) were to do the same thing as HJ, what if anything would you do diffrently than your handleing of HJ? (If you'd like we can move this to your or my talk page)--White Shadows stood on the edge 21:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In summary for those who may have been a bit confused by the follow-ups and more follow-ups and unofficial questions in various places regarding the subject:
  • Admin makes a personal attack or chomps on a newbie (One-off), I discuss with the admin.
  • Admin makes a recurred personal attack against a particular editor after discussion, a report is filed at ANI.
  • Admin ceases to stop attacking a particular editor and appears to be determined to continue on with the personal attacks and incivility regardless of discussion or filed ANI report or both, this would probably be one of if not the only time I'd be willing to block an admin on the spot for personal attacks, a block review would be requested at ANI.
  • Established editor makes a personal attack or chomps on a newbie (One-off), I discuss with the user.
  • Established editor makes a recurred personal attack against a particular editor after discussion, a report is filed at ANI.
  • Established editor ceases to stop attacking a particular editor and appears to be determined to continue on with the personal attacks and incivility regardless of discussion or filed ANI report or both, the established editor is blocked.
It's the same for either party but depends entirely upon the circumstances what action is required on the spot, in the case of either block, a review is requested at ANI. I didn't want to block another admin myself especially if not backed by community consensus (as stated above) due to the potential for a lot of nastiness, however, as the blocking of an admin in any case or any established editor appears to be an inevitable spark for controversy I withdraw my initial response in that I wouldn't block another administrator. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 22:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional question from Mr. R00t Leave me a Message
13. This is a question to attempt to clear something up for most people who are !vote-ing 'oppose'. Okay, I think I've figured this out by your answers. You think that all wikipedians should not be banned even though they are clearly biting other new/IP users. Do you not believe that a user who is clearly abusing others should be banned? I am not sure if I have your answers correct but that is how it is coming across.
A. I believe that people in general, not just on Wikipedia, deserve second chances, that's just the way I feel. Stepping over the line is something that we all do at one point or another and I think for the most part it should be noted, addressed and then disregarded in that if a user makes a single, BITEy comment towards an individual it doesn't automatically warrant a block, but recurring attemps to attack individuals either newbies or established editors by anyone is totally unacceptable, a blatant violation of policy and should be dealt with accordingly depending on the individual case. Hope this has given a little more clarification to my stance on the matter.

Optional Question from Keegan

Q. I'm seriously confused on your thought process between action, answering, and opposition, so let me ask you this:
What, in plain terms, does administrating the English Wikipedia mean to you?
Please write off the cuff if you choose to answer, I'll know a canned response if I see one ;) Again, this is optional, and no one should oppose if you do not answer it. Keegan (talk) 06:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A. It means I'll be able to do, more than I currently do to support the project, the above areas I mentioned in my answer to Q1 are areas I have a genuine interest in working in but currently have limited, or even no access to, due to being unable to access certain, restricted features of the software. As I'm very much into the maintenance side of Wikipedia, I'd love to be able to contribute to these specific areas, but, if it is determined that just too many users would feel uncomfortable with me having access to the tools, I can just continue to do, what I've been doing during my time here on Wikipedia. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 11:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Optional Question from Rohedin

Q. Do you agree that administrators should be nominated because of experience and not of account age? Rohedin TALK 16:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

[edit]

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. As nominator. ϢereSpielChequers 14:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Checks out alright with me. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 14:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support per my good interactions with the nominee on some lower profile articles. Lambanog (talk) 14:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Weak Support - seems fine to me. Did seem fine until you answered questions 6 and 9. Under your policy, which is somewhat awry, I would be blocked but an admin in the same situation wouldn't. :( However, I'm not opposing, because otherwise, you're a good editor, and you may well not have worded what you meant very well. I don't want to see your RfA be ruined when it was going so well, and let's face it guys - he won't make the same error of judgement again... (fingers crossed anyway) Orphan Wiki 14:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Been around for 12 months and his interest around the admin related areas gives me no choice but to support. Excellent candidate. Minimac (talk) 15:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support did so last time and will do so again! Airplaneman ✈ 15:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - Giving Jeffrey a mop seemed like a good idea to me at first glance. I then read through his first Rfa, which confirms that he took some good advice, including work on speedy deletes, and is ready. Best wishes! Jusdafax 15:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Never heard of temporary wikipedian userpages, after clicking on the link in his past Rfa, I was genuinley amazed to find such a backlog. Acather96 (talk) 16:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Support as someone who was neutral last time, I am more than happy to support you this time :)--White Shadows stood on the edge 16:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC) (moved to oppose per Q6 and Q9)[reply]
  9. Support. This editor appears willing to engage on their user talk calmly and directly. Having addressed what seemed to be the major reasoning for the opposes in the previous RfA, along with my observation of Jeffrey's clueful contribution, point to a major net positive. Tiderolls 16:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. No problems that I see. Hi878 (talk) 17:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Per above. Immunize (talk) 17:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Support per consistently being helpful and clueful every time I've stumbled across his edits. —fetch·comms 17:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved to oppose per Q6, Q9, Q10, et al. —fetch·comms 15:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Seems to have genuinely improved since the last RfA. ceranthor 18:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. From what i've seen, its a yes. Dwayne was here! ♫ 18:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Weak support – Giving Jeffrey the mop is not a bad idea. He's been very helpful around Wikipedia. However, I am worried about his answers to questions 6 and 9, as the oppose below have mentioned. Just because someone is an admin does not give them immunity from blocks. If an editor is being disruptive, they should be blocked, regardless of whether or not they are an admin. If they try to unblock themselves, they will be desysopped by ArbCom (Tanthalas39 (talk · contribs) is a prime example). If he corrects his answers to these questions, I may change to a normal support, but currently, I have to unfortunately only weak support. Cheers, —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 19:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    With his answer to question 12, I now change my vote to a normal support. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 22:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support User has a clue about not blocking other administrators. It's unfortunate that the initial opposers have seen that as a double-standard, but I believe I understand it for what it is: a strong preference for drama-avoidance. Blocking another administrator is a guaranteed drama magnet, especially in the circumstances posed in the questions he answered. Jclemens (talk) 20:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comming from an admin, that statement holds zero value to me and a lot of other people here. A mop is a mop, not a shield.--White Shadows stood on the edge 20:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't see how that was particularly called for. Feel free to scrutinize my block log seeing how many more established editors I've blocked than administrators. Blocking is overused to handle disputes, including incivility, in my book, and I like the candidate's answers. We don't need more admins willing to be egalitarian in their blocking, we need more admins willing to avoid blocking non-vandals unless absolutely necessary. Jclemens (talk) 06:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. I agree with Jclemens above. The user simply wants to exhibit caution, as to not create a fiasco when blocking admins. Especially as an admin hopeful, with little "real" experience blocking, exhibiting caution in this situation is one of the best things Jeffrey could do. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 20:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Mreow. #10 is somewhat concerning, and I'll think about it, but I'm still leaning towards net positive. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 02:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Looks good to me. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Weak support Answers are fine with me. I didn't mean to cause a scene by my question, and it is indeed a difficult situation. We all don't wanna piss anyone off, but a hypothetical situation can very well happen, I think you're a fine candidate that would exercise great care when using the administrative tools as well as someone who would think about the consequences if such a situation were to occur. In Q10, the 2nd CSD should be deleted under G10.  – Tommy2010!message 23:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support I can't see what all the fuss is about. I have read his answers and I can see no reason to oppose his promotion. MtD (talk) 00:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Same reason as with MtD. IronBreww (chat) 02:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support His answers seem fine to me also. Narthring (talk • contribs) 02:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Even after my above question I do still believe that he should get the mop. Good answers to other questions. Not into making choices but who can blame him. Support Mr. R00t Leave me a Message 03:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support per nom. Also, I like his thoughtful and organized approach to the RfA responses, and the rewording of a questioned response to make sure he was communicating clearly. That kind of attention to clarity is a valuable quality for an admin. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. Have no problems at all with this editor and seen some really good work from them. Has earned the community's trust. -- Ϫ 09:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Weak Support, sufficient clue for me. I see questions 6 and 10 as traps. Q6 and its follow-up cascade actually describes a very difficult situation for a new admin, and I can understand the candidate's gut feeling to back off from such a case as soon as possible, for instance by reporting it to AN/I. Jumping into a new field of admin tasks and performing one of the most controversial actions possible without prior wide consultation is seldom a good idea. Q10 asks primarily about the A7 criterion. That the second example should be deleted per G10 is actually a new question, hidden in the somewhat murky wording. My support is only weak because (1) he walked into two traps at once, previous attendance of RfA discussions could have avoided that, and (2) I have trouble following his arguments in many of the answers and believe as admin he should be able to explain things much more to the point -- the latter concern is of course a personal feeling, and if I am the only one having that problem then it is my fault, not his. --Pgallert (talk) 10:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Q12 has clarified things to my satisfaction. I'm convinced this candidate will do a lot of good things with the tools, and if, as a new admin, he's not comfortable diving right in to controversial actions, then I think that is understandable - in fact, I think it's quite wise for new admins to start off cautiously. (And I don't think it's fair to judge a candidate on one, ostensibly hypothetical, issue - one that has only recently arisen in RfA land) -- Boing! said Zebedee 10:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support - Good involvement in WP:AIV, WP:HELPDESK, WP:UAA, WP:AN/I & WP:RPP. Vipinhari || talk 16:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
[edit]
  1. Oppose Strongest possible oppose. Maybe I'm getting the wrong end of the stick from the answers to Q6 and 9, but you seem to think admins are exempt from policies or are exempt from being blocked for violations thereof. Also, admisnhip is about making tough decisions- if it wasn't, we'd have bots that do more than just clerk AIV and RfPP. Wishing to be an uncontroversial admin is commendable, but I worry that you wouldn't be comfortable having to make potentially controversial decisions and I have concerns over how you would deal with the inevitable screams of admin abuse that follow any controversial decision. I can't support an admin who won't make a judgement call when it might be controversial- that why we have admins. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've upped to "strongest possible" oppose per the answer to Q10- that second example should be deleted as a G10, regardless of whether it meets A7 or not. I would be deeply uncomfortable with having an admin who doesn't recognise that unsourced, potentially libellous information about living people needs to be deleted on sight. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the candidate means that he expects all administrators to be aware of those policies and thus a block may be appropriate depending on the situation.. but I understand the double standard point you made.  – Tommy2010!message 19:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose (for now) Q6 and Q9 seem to tell me that you belive in double standards here. You litteraly said that If say HJ here got into a big fight with an Ip or a newbie, you'd not block him since he is an admin but you would block oh say me since I am an established editor but not an admin. Until you clarify your answer a bit more and tell us that you're admin related actions would not be influenced by another person's "user rights", I'm going to have to oppose this RFA.--White Shadows stood on the edge 19:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry if that's the impression I gave off but no one is exempt from policy and I never said admins were either. Not too long ago we lost several admins including this one due to apparent disputes in which one admin blocked another who then unblocked themself and blocked another, this is exactly the scenario I'm talking about and would like to prevent from happening again in the future to the best of my ability, I'm all for having an admin blocked if it's called for under the circumstances but I'd rather discuss it beforehand instead of blocking an admin on the spot (technically could be classed as a cool down block) as it can be lifted by the blocked user as they're an administrator themself and especially if said block is not backed by community consensus as this is where thinks can go nastily wrong, however inappropriate or against policy this may be you have to take into consideration that it is indeed technically possible in that the software will allow you to do it. I'm presuming the bit that grabbed attention was this: As an established editor I would have expected them to already be aware of our behavioural guidelines and policies, specifically Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, this was added to my answer to Q9 specifically because it was noted that User:HJ Mitchell was talking specifically about an established editor and yet I've seen editors who've been here years and not known of some policies, editorial and behavioural guidelines such as these, this wasn't added to my answer to Q6 because it would be obvious that I (as well as everyone else) would expect an admin to be aware of such well known policies and behavioural guidelines as Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. I don't believe in double standards and I by no means believe admins are exempt from policy, it's unfortunate however, that my phrasing on Q6 was off and I hope this expansion would have cleared up some of the confusion. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 19:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for that explanation. I'm not quite satisfied, though and would appreciate it if you could elaborate further. So, if you saw me do something for which you would block a non-admin (White Shadows, for instance), would you block me. Also, I have the technical ability to unblock myself (technically, I could block myself!) but I'm not allowed to and there are messages to that effect on all the relevant special pages, so if I did, I'd probably be desysopped. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have the same concerns as HJ here. I'm not totally ready to support and I'll be awaiting your reply to HJ. Thanks.--White Shadows stood on the edge 20:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Although you have moved to strongest possible oppose I'll still expand upon my expansion to Q9 per request. You may have been blocked depending on community consensus determined by an uninvolved admin at ANI, if I felt that you needed to be blocked under the circumstances I would !vote in favour of blocking you and share my opinion on the noticeboard but I wouldn't be the one to block you as I would now be involved. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 20:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for makeing that clear. I'm going to hold off from moveing back to support or neutral for now though and see if anything else comes up. (sorry for being so rough on you) Right now I'm looking towards Support or at least neutral :) Thanks for makeing yourself clear :)--White Shadows stood on the edge 23:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. I'm sorry, I was actually going to support, but your answers to questions 6 and 9 are more than worrying! Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 20:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per answers 6 & 9. If the admin was annoying the newbie, I'll say yes because admins should not annoy newbies, and that the admin should be blocked and de-sysoped. Décembër21st2012Freâk Talk at 20:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per the two above me. To be an admin, ya gotta step be willing to step in the shit sometimes. Don't get me started with AfD and DRV closes, and that's the least controversial. Still controversial, though. I should add that "established editors" are often following IAR, as it were, and tend to lose some of the more current clue. But that's just imo. Xavexgoem (talk) 21:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Hell, a semi-protect can cause controversy![reply]
  6. Oppose per questions 6 and 9. Administrators shouldn't be blocked, but experienced editors should be? Admins are by definition experienced. "one rule for thee, another for me" is not how I expect an admin to behave, and if you refuse to undertake actions because "they might be controversial" you're not needing the tools. Oy vey, the number of emails OTRS gets about blocks and deletions (and that's just OTRS) shows that almost anything can be controversial. Ironholds (talk) 21:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, he says that both administrators and experienced editors should be equally blocked. See his answer to question 12. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 22:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose - I kinda feel for you on questions 6 and 9 - that's one of those where there's no good answer. If you say yes, then you're not supporting your fellow admin and if you say no or "let's discuss it", then it's a double standard. Your answer of "I'm not going to be the one to make the block" is probably what most admins feel, if we're honest. But your answer to #10 really bothers me. That second one obviously cannot be allowed to stay like that. It needs to immediately be deleted or sourced - not hang around waiting for a prod. BLP is a fundamental policy and a firm understanding of it is the most important job for an admin. --B (talk) 22:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Weak Oppose my apologies for the pile on but your answers to Q6 and Q9 and the follow up do not convince me that you are ready for the mop. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 00:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose - Sorry but to Q's 6 and 9, my take is the admin should never be on that side of the fence and blocked immediately. As per RP459, hate to add to the pile but not yet Mlpearc pull my chain 'Tribs 01:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose. As noted above, per the responses to 6, 9, and 10. --PinkBull 01:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose A number of the answers aren't great, but #10 is particularly worrisome. BLPs with unsourced potentially libelous material need to be deleted immediately and handled more aggressively than A7s.--Terrillja talk 04:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose per the answers to questions. I believe you are well-intended and wish to help the project, however, I can't support someone who would keep the Teo Eff article (example 2 at question 10) which contains very serious - potentially defamatory - completely unsourced claims that named and presumably living persons are gang members who murdered numerous innocent persons. I think the candidate needs to go back to the basics, particularly with regard to WP:V and WP:BLP, before being granted the administrator tools. I'm glad you've made a clarification, but I'm honestly not convinced re the whole special treatment for admins answers. Sarah 06:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Per above. Answers to 6, 9 and 10 appear worrisome. —Dark 07:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose with regret, per Sarah- Q10 is a softball for you to show what you know on, and I'm afraid you blew it. Example 1 should be instantly BLP Prodded, and 2 should be an instant delete under G10. We do not let "X and Y are murderers" sit around for however long hoping someone drives by and sources it- it goes, instantly. Courcelles (talk) 13:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose with regret, as per Courcelles. While I don't have a problem with declining the speedy for Example 1, Example 2 is clearly a BLP-insta-delete. I look forward to supporting next time around.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Further clarify that I don't mind the answers to the blocking questions.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose (moved from support) per Q6, Q9, Q10, et al. Sorry, but I was hoping for less sloppy work than that out of you. —fetch·comms 15:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Weak Oppose answer to Q6 honestly is not acceptable. An admin and a non-admin editor have exactly same rights, and a private email discussion with another admin is the worst way to lead a dispute to a resolution, above all when there'is an evident deprecable behaviour. --Theirrulez (talk) 15:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. This is a tough one for me. A lot of these questions are really tough, and taken individually I don't see how this candidate's views would be problematic. I don't expect a new admin to be able to sort through the stickiest stuff right out of the gate, and this candidate seems willing to tread carefully at first. Taken as a whole, the responses strike me as written by someone who's unwilling to take any position on a debate. Being able to see all sides of an issue can be cultivated into admin skills, but I need to know that an admin can move past that and determine which viewpoint most reflects consensus. I don't think this candidate is quite ready to do that, but I strongly believe this will change. Please try again if this attempt is unsuccessful.--~TPW 15:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose. Re the mistake regarding the second speedy example, which shows a dangerous level of lack of care; it might be a trick question, but it's not a particularly difficult one. (As an aside, caution regarding civility blocks seems to me a reasonable response.) Espresso Addict (talk) 15:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
Waiting for more answers definitely leaning towards support, excellent answers to the questions  – Tommy2010!message 18:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: You're currently listed as having !voted twice; it looks to me like you're supporting since that !vote is more recent but because I'm not sure I'm not going to cross out this one. —Soap— 15:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It appears from Q's 6 and 9 that you see Admins as warranting special treatment compared to an established editor. I note that blocks were held as options in both cases, hence my neutral for now, but in the case of the established editor (who "should know the policies") the block seemed to be higher up on the list of options than for the admin, who is certainly expected to know the policies as well. ArakunemTalk 19:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Answer to Question 10 is a problem if the BLP/G10 issue isn't picked up here and I've opposed other candidates because of this question. Parking here while I consider further because I want to take time to think and consider the bigger picture before opposing over one question. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral at the moment while I ponder answers to questions. I generally see a pretty good candidate, but I also see some timidity where I think a bit more decisiveness might be more appropriate. However, having said that, I can't help thinking some of the questions arising in RfAs at the moment are aimed at one rather specific problem, and it's perhaps a bit unfair to try to focus candidates on that one issue. -- Boing! said Zebedee 22:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Changing to support -- Boing! said Zebedee 10:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral leaning towards support - Can't give full support due to Q6 and Q9. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 22:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Weak Neutral leaning to support: Answer to Questions 6 and 9 are making me think no, however your strong work toward making the Wiki a better place is making me think yes. Pilif12p :  Yo  22:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral Per Philif12p and oppose reasons. BejinhanTalk 06:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral but leaning support. I’m less concerned about the Q6 and Q9 answers than I am the Q10 answer. Q6 and Q9 are minefields – the tension between the unwritten rule that you don’t block sysops, and the written rule that everyone is treated the same makes for hard to answer questions. I slightly more concerned at the miss for the second Q10 CSD. On one hand it is a serious miss for the project if it isn’t deleted. However, in practice, the declination would delay the deletion by literally minutes, until someone else alerted a different sysop, and it would be a good learning experience. So missing this isn’t enough to cause me to oppose, but it leads me to think a little more time spent o policies would be worthwhile. Looks like ti could be a close call; I won’t be unhappy if the supports win, I see evidence that Jeffrey intends to tread carefully, so will probably turn into a fine sysop.SPhilbrickT 13:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I think the delay would be considerably longer than just a few minutes- just yesterday I came across an article that had been tagged with a BLP PROD and had sat there for 10 days that served no purpose but to tell the reader that the subject was a transvestite (amongst other, similar claims). While both the creation and the tagging were in good faith, it needed to be deleted instantly and admins need to be on the ball when it comes to that kind of thing, which is the reason I'm opposing so vehemently, much as it pains me to do so. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral A good candidate, good intentions but answers to Q6, Q9 and Q12 are a bit of concern and the "totally unacceptable" part is something I'd hope you wouldn't go saying around to an admin. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 17:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Jeffrey_Mall_2&oldid=1144597238"