Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jnothman

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

jnothman

[edit]

final (46/2/0) ending 12:00 25 December 2005 (UTC)

jnothman (talk · contribs) – Self-nom. Having been around since November '04, but only really becoming active in March 2005, I feel like I've done enough of the various tasks on Wikipedia (from writing articles to vandal fighting to MediaWiki patches) without too much trouble, and am now fairly familiar with the system: enough, I guess, to not have any opposition to my own RFA. Although I don't think it says much, my edit count for those who need it is >3100 (including deleted edits). I know a lot more about me, but I think I'll leave that to questions and my contribs. =P jnothman talk 12:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: jnothman talk 12:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support. El_C 12:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. «LordViD» 14:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support it's about time. Izehar (talk) 14:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support very helpful guy. Dlyons493 Talk 14:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Would make a great admin. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 16:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support, he is hardly going to abuse administrator tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. Thanks/wangi 17:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support with cliche in hand. Xoloz 18:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. A good contributor.--Dakota ? e 19:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Would make a great admin. Gflores Talk 21:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support with pleasure. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. ...Must....resist...cliché... Support. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 00:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. --Jaranda wat's sup 00:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Good editor --rogerd 01:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 04:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. He has made quite a variety of contributions to the project, and his assistance at the Help Desk demonstrates his knowledge of Wikipedia. The minor edits thing is forgiveable; he now understands how to use them I'm sure. A nice guy in person too. enochlau (talk) 04:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. Radiant's comment below does concern me a little, but it also shows that Jnothman learns from mistakes. A dedicated wikipedia - should be a fine admin. Grutness...wha? 04:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support has been making a fine contribution through help and I'm sure would make a fine admin either now or in the future.Capitalistroadster 06:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support per all the above. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 09:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support contributions appear solid--MONGO 10:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  21. King of All the Franks 14:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  22. By all means support. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 16:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support no brainer.Gator (talk) 19:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support, appears a good and reliable editor. Palmiro | Talk 21:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Valuable contributor, helpful guy. ~MDD4696 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support pfctdayelise 00:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Someone who just rolls up his sleeves and gets on with it, and in my limited experience well-suited to admin duties. --LesleyW 03:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Solid contributor who will make an excellent admin. -- Ian ≡ talk 04:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. Good and responsible contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. Looks fine. --Kefalonia 13:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. Has been nothing short of wonderfully supportive and helpful (not to mention the only one to help me) with my project on categorizing the Hebrew alphabet. Deserves to be an admin and I'm sure will make a great one. Sputnikcccp 03:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. will make a splendid admin, I agree. Flowerparty■ 04:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Super Hyper Magnificent Extreme Superlative Supportingness!. Agreeing with Nightstallion that RfA is not an endorsement of a user's supposèd flawlessness. I'd rather have admins who can admit they've made a mistake and be willing to improve, as jnothman's response to Radiant!'s objection indicates he is, than have admins who are incapable of accepting and incorporating honest constructive criticism into their MO. Given jnothman's response, I think he fits in well with my view of a perfect candidate: not the personification of perfection, but the personification of a desire to keep working toward perfection. Tomertalk 08:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. JFW | T@lk 15:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. He convinced me that the afd helper wasn't such a Bad Thing After All. Insert mopthrower here. Alphax τεχ 15:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support (even though he's Jewish and a Sydneysider--shock, horror!) Sarah Ewart 19:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support - as long as you continue using the minor edits tag wisely. Thelb4 20:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support - seems a good, honest user, and I have bumped into him a few times in vandal fighting revert clashes. Ian13ID:540053 22:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support - good contributor; will learn the admin ropes quickly... and write lots of user scripts to help with admin chores :) Jamie (talk/contribs) 06:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support solid contributions. Agnte 11:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. You're a nice guy who helps at the help desk. Help with my rapping article please, hehe! Grats on admin now!--Urthogie 16:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. Jayjg (talk) 20:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support, has the right attitude and experience for the job. Minoreditcountitis is a non-issue. Hall Monitor 22:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support - need more Jewish Admins. --Doc ask? 10:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  45. SupportHes a truely active member — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ari89 (talk • contribs) 12:33, 24 December 2005
  46. Support --Terence Ong Talk 07:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose, has made only a few dozen non-minor edits to Wikispace or Wikipedia_Talk. Radiant_>|< 21:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. Jnothman supports the actions of known trolls and abusive users, and does not attend to edit summaries and Talk pages prior to taking action. Adraeus 04:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for letting me know... But I don't know what exactly you're referring to. If you are referring to my reversion of your reversion of Template:Infobox Company, well then you clearly didn't understand the fact you had created a few thousand messed up pages by performing your reversion: I was not adhering to the POV of any known troll, I was trying to have the articles on the encyclopedia at least appear clean while not understanding the issue at hand. Further, I don't understand your ability to generalise a single instance of what I had attempted to make in good faith for the sake of the encyclopaedia (and not the specifics of the implementations of a template or the actions of Netoholic) to your comment above. Please let me know examples where I have done wrong. Thanks. jnothman talk 10:46, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now there are a few more admins recently joining the Jewish section, give it a month. 220.233.48.200 10:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous users cannot vote. Furthermore, it's ridiculous to have some kind of a quota by cultural background. enochlau (talk) 11:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, definitely too many white admins on Wikipedia. Or Americans. Or Asians for that matter... And of course it's my fault and not the other Jewish admin candidates'... jnothman talk 13:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Shame on me? for voting according to jnothman's edit history rather than to his Jewishness. Well hey, now that I know he's Jewish, I'll hafta change my vote to "Super Hyper Magnificent Extreme Superlative Supportingness!" instead of just "Support", just to throw my support behind the Cabal! Yay! Cabal_membership++; all the way! Tomertalk 13:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Tomer, it took me a moment to look through this user's contribs, but it's curious to note that the user is Jewish, and also from Sydney (indeed, same ISP as me!)... And that the vote may actually be personal and the comment here is only an excuse. Indeed, I had forgotten about it, but I may have had the closest thing to an edit war with this user in regards to which religious leaders may qualify on the List of Oceanian Jews. See the talk page there. jnothman talk 13:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting indeed, yes it was probably a personal thing. And that is nowhere near an "edit war" :P That's merely a quaint discussion over a cup of tea. enochlau (talk) 14:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh. At least it wasn't about High and Mighty Grand Chief Mufti Chazzan Rabbi Dr. Lawrence Eliezer Képecs. Count your blessings. Tomertalk 05:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Comments

Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A. My choice of chore in the past has been quite spontaneous, or full of periodic trends. I often find myself dealing with regular chores anyway, whether it be looking at the day's list of blank pages, or wanted categories or RC patrol; these (not so much wanted categories) often find a use for SysOp permissions (****), as do some questions on the Help Desk (or a desire to edit Wikipedia:Contact us and other protected pages). Among other things, I would like to be able to be more helpful at the Help Desk where I have been hanging around a lot lately, time committments restricting more extensive project input. There was a stage when I dealt with AFDs, so I may go back there to close a few. And that backlog looks like a mighty fix when I need some procrastination!
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A.
  • Lately, I have been pleased with many of my replies on the Help Desk (there was a week when I handled the email version as well, but my life caught up with me); I enjoy answering questions because I get to learn more and experiment myself.
  • I built an afd helper user script that makes voting on (and nominating) articles for AFD much easier, to simplify what is a chore. (It was argued that this could make more useless a process that was already flawed, but one main antagonist actually tried it and wasn't so upset in the end.)
  • I also built a template/external tool to make bible references simpler.
  • Finally, articles: I have written Zionist youth movement and the summary Dudu Fisher, while writing some other stubs and improving many articles. While I am pleased with these, I am yet to become accustomed to using non-web sources.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A. Other than the aforementioned issues with AFD Helper (see question 2), I do not recall having been a major participant in any conflicts. I was involved in a conflict at Talk:Ten Commandments in a minor way, but feel at least that my second of two comments was constructive and relatively convincing [1]. I try to keep my arguments rational: my argument at [2] was able to cause a change in vote ([3]), which I hope is some evidence of sensible discussion!
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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Jnothman&oldid=1085557848"