Misplaced Pages

Oppose

1. Xed 17:38, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
2. I believe him to be biased on several important topics, to the point that I question his ability to remain neutral in disputes and use powers such as protection responsibly and without bias. blankfaze | (беседа!) 18:24, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

   Do you never represent a POV anywhere, Blankfaze? JFW | T@lk 19:10, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

   On Misplaced Pages, no, not really. I try to be as objective and unbiased as possible. For instance, I have removed vandalisms and POV additions (although I agreed with some of them) from George W. Bush and other articles. Misplaced Pages is supposed to be about informations, not opinions. And I am not certain that this user understands that. blankfaze | (беседа!) 19:37, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

   So you wouldn't consider insisting on British spellings over American spellings on the grounds that British English "is correct English" and "the superior and proper form of the language" to be POV? :-O Jayjg 05:51, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

   Haha. Well, I don't really "insist". As I said on my talk page, I don't go changing United States Secretary of Defense to United States Secretary of Defence or something of the like. I only correct AE spellings in articles I come across that are not at all related to the US, and on extremely visible pages such as the Main Page, of course! blankfaze | (беседа!) 17:22, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

   Jayjg is highly biased towards a POV that I find rather extreme (which in itself is of course completely legitimate). He is very persistent and dedicated to pushing this POV to the exclusion of opposing views. On the other hand he is very professional and polite. The question is whether he will maintain this professional conduct as an admin, or whether he will use the increased powers in the same way he uses his "common" Wikipedian's powers (i.e. to push his POV). It is of course impossible to predict, we are asked to express trust in advance. Normally I would give him the benefit of the doubt. The trouble is that once I have given away my vote here, I clearly have no realistic means to hold him to account in the case where he does abuse his admin powers (and judging by the vote at Misplaced Pages:Administrators/Administrator Accountability Policy) this will remain so. So after debating about his nomination all day for a while, I have decided to vote against change my vote(NB not because of his POV but because with current Misplaced Pages procedures I can't bring myself to take the risk of endorsing him strongly enough). - pir 19:45, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

   Thanks for your thoughtful contribution, pir, and your explanation on my Talk: page as well. Jayjg 05:54, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

3. Taco Deposit | Talk-o Deposit 15:31, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
4. Kim Bruning 19:05, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC) Pirs argument is rather strong, so I'm going to be a bit lazy, and just agree with hir. I'll certainly give due consideration in a month or two when Jayjg comes by a second time.  :-)
5. Noisy 01:31, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC) Normally I wouldn't vote without personal experience of a contributor, but the lack of unanimity in this instance made me look at the contributions list. My opinion – from an admittedly brief perusal of the list – is that Jayjg has too narrow a focus to be a true admin ... (I'd be surprised if his watchlist tops 200) ... and that some usage of the 'Show preview' button would have significantly cut his number of edits. Finally, I've been here about the same time, and I don't recall seeing the name on any of the community pages that I frequent.

   209 actually, when I just checked it. What is a reasonable number for an admin? Jayjg 01:57, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

   Gee, is a large watchlist a requirement for adminship? I have all of eight pages on mine, and obviously one of those is my own user page (no prizes for guessing the other seven). --Michael Snow 02:42, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

   Agreement. I was just made admin and I've used my watchlist all of three times. Honestly. Mike H 02:44, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

   I'm up to 222 now; as a result, I now feel approximately 6% more fit to be an admin. ;-) Jayjg 03:16, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

6. From what I've seen so far, I haven't been too impressed. Would perhaps reconsider at a later date. Ambi 07:00, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
7. If he isn't aware of "how rogue admins are reigned in" then he needs to do more reading before becoming an admin. - Tεxτurε 17:18, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Jayjg has made some fine contributions. However, he seems to be a bit confrontational in some of his edits and explanations. I do not think that he is rash; indeed, he has handled volatile articles rather calmly, such as those related to Judaism and Christianity. I'm not against him recieving adminship; I just think that Jayjg should attempt to be a better communicator, especially if he becomes an admin. --Slowking Man 22:51, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
2. Agree with Pir basically. As long as adminship is given out as a life tenure without possibility of recall, I can't support someone with a strong POV like that. Despite all the "janitor" talk, adminship in the present system is a position of considerable power, and power tends to corrupt. But as I have not seen particular misbehaviour on his part so far, I won't oppose; and I would readily support if there was any real, functioning mechanism for de-adminship in place. Gzornenplatz 09:52, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
   • Good points both on the issue of adminship. I don't understand how "rogue" admins are reigned in either, and that is worrying. Jayjg 18:22, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
3. Mike H 19:22, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC) Next time will probably be best.
4. Ditto Mike H. ] 00:47, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
5. I really like what I've seen of Jayjg. He has seemed to be calm, rational, and persistent in his view without being exclusionary of the views of others. The whole thing with Xed's votes is a bit moot, as Xed surely does seem to be new and a little too motivated. The only reason that I'm not voting for Jayjg is that I want a little more time on the project before the nomination. I.e. barring anything really disturbing happening, I will vote 'yes' on the next nomination, which I hope is made in 8 weeks or so. Geogre 15:24, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
6. I just reviewed his edits on Yasser Arafat and basically I agree that he passed over that fine line of POV in his edits, even by so very little. However, is this reason to fear adminstrator abuse? I don't know. Gadykozma 01:52, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Comments

• Engages in stalking behaivior. Highly biased in issues related to Israel.--Xed 17:38, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • This is based solely on a disagreement on Druze, where this user attempted to push a certain POV. He's only been around for two weeks. Xed, if you think this is stalking, you ain't seen no edit warring yet! Please revise your vote after looking through the edit history of Jew. By Misplaced Pages standards, this is no stalking. JFW | T@lk 19:10, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • If I could add 10 more votes to 'Oppose' I would. As well as stalking me, he accused me of making up this quote by Nixon - "when the president does it that means that it is not illegal". This is not acceptable behaviour for an administrator.--Xed 19:34, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • See also this RFAr. I request Xed's vote is ignored if the tally is borderline (which won't happen anyway). JFW | T@lk
    • I'm to be ignored because I disagree with you? What an unusual system of democracy.--Xed 19:34, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • No, you are to be ignored because you seem to make frivolous or ridiculous (or both) assertions. JFW | T@lk 20:09, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • By 'frivolous assertions' I suppose you mean my opposition to harassment via email.--Xed 20:32, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Actually, I've removed your vote because you are presently banned for trolling. It can be reinstated if you behave yourself. JFW | T@lk 22:27, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • vote reinstated by third party - thanks--Xed 22:59, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • My concerns about Xed's vote remain. A single spree of edit wars is a poor reason for voting against adminship. I note that Xed has been unbanned. JFW | T@lk 23:11, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Jayjg has accused me of making up a quote. I have mentioned this many times. you have failed to address this, as well as telling me which way to vote. Additionally you have made patronising comments such as " It can be reinstated if you behave yourself", "revise your vote after looking through the edit history" and "I would urge you to reconsider your vote". --Xed 23:34, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • I have a reputation of being patronising, paternalistic, pedantic and every other word with a P. Making up a quote is an accusation that can be dealt with on the page's (or user's) talk page, and not here. And, see below, I have giving up trying to change your mind. Can I now go back to editing, please? JFW | T@lk 23:57, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Please note: JFW has attempted to delete my opposing vote after I refused to take his advice to change my mind--Xed 23:34, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Rubbish. I deleted your opposing vote because you'd just been banned for trolling. As the decision was made to unblock you, I did not oppose Blankfaze's action to reinstate your vote. I am not trying to force you to change your vote. I am simply very concerned by your general behaviour on Misplaced Pages and I refuse to let this influence this RFA vote. JFW | T@lk 23:53, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • A patent lie. You say above 'request Xed's vote is ignored if the tally is borderline' BEFORE I was temporarily blocked. You wanted it removed from the start--Xed 00:08, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I asked for your vote to be ignored because you were trolling, which later led to your blocking. Will you stop hairsplitting? JFW | T@lk 00:49, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Jfdwolff please stop feeding the trolls. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 00:53, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Are Xed and Pitchka sockpuppets? - pir 16:06, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Xed certainly is. JFW | T@lk 21:07, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• (Moved from Texture's vote)

  Do you have any examples of rogue admins being censured in some sort of permanent way? I've never seen or heard of it being done. In fact, as far as I can tell, if one is persistent enough (regardless of whether or not one is an admin), one can never be permanently censured or banned from Misplaced Pages, since inevitably some admin somewhere will un-ban you. Some admins seem to make it a policy of un-banning people. Jayjg 18:59, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  That's an attitude that worries me. You don't seem to have respect for the position. How can you be expected to fulfill the obligations with that opinion of the position you aspire to? in cases where admins have used their power in questionable circumstances they have been taken to account. I haven't heard of any actions that required censure "in some sort of permanent way". Do you have an example in mind that was not reviewed by the community? - Tεxτurε 22:05, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  I highly respect the position, but I am also aware of the issues surrounding it. This does not mean the position itself is bad, but as Pir, Gzornenplatz, and Kim Bruning have pointed out, Misplaced Pages "clearly ha no realistic means to hold to account in the case where abuse admin powers (and judging by the vote at Misplaced Pages:Administrators/Administrator Accountability Policy) this will remain so." The question here is not whether you have heard of any admin actions that required censure in some sort of permanent way, but rather, what is the procedure that would be followed in such a case. Do you have a Misplaced Pages page I can examine which outlines an agreed upon process for such cases? Are Pir, Gzornenplatz, and Kim Bruning wrong? To clarify further, if a legal system had a methodology for appointing judges, but none for removing them when warranted (e.g. for taking bribes, mental illness, etc.), then I would be concerned about that as well. This wouldn't, of course, mean that I disrespect the position of judge itself; rather, when powers are granted, but there is no way of "un-granting" them, then everyone should be concerned. Jayjg 02:12, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  Are you familiar with Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment#Use_of_administrator_privileges? It used to be Misplaced Pages:Requests for review of administrative actions and you can look there for past claims against admins and any actions taken. I don't know of any since it was combined with Requests for comment. - Tεxτurε 02:43, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  Yes, I've seen it. It doesn't answer the question at all, and the issue remains. It is quite clear that there is no procedure for removing admins (if necessary), only a procedure for creating them. Jayjg 03:15, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  Well, sir, we can agree on that. There is no real way to hold admins accountable, short of the snail-speed Arbcom. THAT, sir, is precisely why I'd not want to risk giving you admin powers! blankfaze | (беседа!) 04:01, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  Thanks for sharing your honest feelings on the subject, Blankfaze. I appreciate the feedback. Jayjg 03:08, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  You haven't yet given me an example of what you are worried about. Where has an admin needed deadminship? Give me that one example where misuse of admin abilities has not been addressed. Who is this admin you need removed? What did some admin do that makes you think it is necessary? Rogue admins are reigned in. This has not yet had to involve deadminship. The adminship process is to weed out anyone who would do something so bad as to need removal. I'm glad that it has proven successful. I am having trouble following your complaint or lack of understanding of admin oversight. - Tεxτurε 04:05, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  I believe I have made my position clear, which is, I understand Pir's (and others) concerns about the situation itself, that there exists a process for creating admins, but none for removing them (if necessary). The issue is not about any specific admins, but about the process of creating admins itself, which is a one-time event; while it may weed out people who might initially "do something so bad as to need removal" there is no guarantee that a decision made at one point in time might still be appropriate at a later date. People do change. Jayjg 03:08, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  No-one is aware of how "rogue admins" are reigned in, including you, because there is no process for doing so, and because it apparently has never been done, so there is no precedent either. Jayjg 03:15, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  I have answered you but you have not answered my questions and don't appear to agree that there is oversight of admins. That convinces me more that you should not be an admin. Do you think you will be beyond control when you have adminship? Is that why you want it? - Tεxτurε 04:15, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  I think the issue of who answered whose questions is getting us a bit bogged down at this point, so I'm going to move on from that, as it's making the tone of our discussion more confrontational than I would like. Regarding potential adminship for me, of course I wouldn't be "beyond control", and I have not sought adminship, but, as a pleasant surprise, have been nominated for this honour. Oh, and I agree that there is oversight of admins, and have never argued to the contrary (though there still is no process for removing admins); in any event, that's great news, because now you don't have to be "convinced more" about my unfitness for the position. :-) Jayjg 03:08, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Texture, I don't think you're being quite fair. As user:Pir notes, Jayjg has shown to be perfectly capable of seperating POV on article material and administrative/community activities. I would frankly find him an unlikely person to be become a rogue admin. He has not requested admin powers - I take responsibility for nominating him, and he has - to be perfectly honest - been more hesitant than anything in accepting the nomination. I think Jayjg is a thorough contributor and will make a thorough admin who will adhere scrupulously to policy. From the above I cannot possibly determine what question you'd like Jayjg to answer! Rogue admins are reined in with RFC/RFM/RFAr, and perhaps with the new accountability policy. What more is there to this question? JFW | T@lk 05:56, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Texture, while perhaps being a tad overagressive, is being plenty fair... Pir (though I think him a good chap) is wrong, flat out WRONG in this case. Not only is Jayjg incapable of separating his POV from his editing, he blatantly puts POV into articles! He's right up there with POV wackos like VV and Rex071404... And, for the record, there is no "new accountability policy"... the proposal failed. blankfaze | (беседа!) 06:07, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Thanks for stating your honest opinion again, Blankfaze. As you can see from the voting, other contributors strongly disagree with your POV on this, but that's the way it is sometimes on Misplaced Pages; one person's "NPOV edit" is another's "highly POV edit". Oh well, if everyone thought alike life would be pretty boring. :-) Jayjg 03:08, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Self nominations for adminship

Self-nominators, please review the qualifications above. Many editors feel that self-nominees should "exceed the usual guidelines by a good measure," have an account name that is many months old and have many hundreds of edits. This is not to say that self-nominators are necessarily any less qualified than "sponsored" nominations; however, many editors use their knowledge of the nominator as a "jumping off" point for considering nominees, and it is human nature to be more skeptical of those asking for a position than those being proposed by others. If you self-nominate, a good solid background is therefore very important.

Anárion (8/4/3) Ends 07:59, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've been actively editing using this account since april 2004, and have over 1500 non-minor edits as of this date. I feel sysop rights could be helpful for helping on patrol pages like Misplaced Pages:Redirects for deletion, Misplaced Pages:Categories for deletion, and similar pages. My main interest is in fiction and fictional topics, although I do edit "real topics" when I feel I have something to say. Sysop rights will also occasionally help in merging multiple stubby articles into broader articles. I must point out that currently I am involved in a debate on Acronym with User:Nohat, but I feel that the article's talk page is evidence enough that I am doing my best to work towards a concensus there.

Support

1. —No-One Jones 08:17, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

   172 08:29, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC) (At the time of my support vote, I was confusing this user with another user.172 15:27, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC))

2. — Jor (Talk) 15:29, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
3. -- orthogonal 17:52, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
4. Oppose until I see enough evidence that Anárion is not a sockpuppet of Jor. --Lst27 20:45, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)I move my vote to support.
5. Jwrosenzweig 19:05, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC) Er....I like Anarion, and would normally have supported, but Jor's vote is odd, considering it's his first edit in a long while (and that Jor's user page seems to imply he's editing under a different name now). I always liked Jor in the contexts we interacted, so this isn't me bashing either Jor or Anarion. I just have to think about this for a while. I've seen enough sockpuppet weird stuff around here that I trust my own judgment to a good extent -- this just doesn't have the feel of that sort of thing. I trust Anarion, and believe that adminship is well deserved. Jwrosenzweig 13:50, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
6. Neutral > Support. Even if he is a sockpuppet, he hasn't been disruptive. Sockpuppets may be "uncool", but Anarion hasn't acted Jorish. --MerovingianFile:Atombomb.gifTalk 05:05, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
7. Vote moved from neutral to support. Andre 16:53, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
8. Support. He's been nice, helpful and contributing, in the couple topics and discussions I've happened to meet him. Aris Katsaris 22:23, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)