Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jakew

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.

Jakew

[edit]

(29/20/9); withdrawn by candidate 16:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Jakew (talk · contribs) – Jake has been a member of Wikipedia since 2004, and has amassed around 5000 edits. Jake has always impressed me with his knowledge and application of wikipedia policy and guideline, and his civility and politeness, even in the face of being the recipient of personal attacks from other editors. These are very important traits for an administrator, who must deal with the difficulties one encounters helping wikipedia run smoothly. He specializes in circumcision and related topics, but has made significant edits over a large spectrum of topics and is a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. He is a helpful member of wikipedia with a good understanding of how wikipedia works, and the manners and courtesy to handle the difficulties dealing with users. We need more administrators such as he, which is why I am pleased to be able to nominate him for admin status. Avi 02:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I thank Avi for his kind words, and accept the nomination. Jakew 16:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC) I withdraw. My thanks to all who participated. Jakew 16:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog and Category:Administrative backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: Initially, I would like to assist on notice boards. In particular, I feel that WP:PAIN and WP:RFPP would benefit from an additional pair of eyes. Later, I would be interested in helping with the deletion process. I would expect the scope of my administrative activities to become broader over time, but there is a chicken and egg problem in stating them, since I am mostly interested in what I can do.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: I'm most pleased with my work on Amchitka, a small Alaskan island with a rich military history. Beginning in early October 2006, I effectively rewrote the article from a stub. I also created and included some free images. I'm especially pleased with it because I think it shows what can be achieved when our policies (notably WP:V and WP:NPOV) are rigorously applied. On October 23, it became a featured article.
As Avi has noted, I also work on circumcision and related articles. This is a highly controversial subject, and much of my work has involved ensuring that the content is neutral, and that articles are not used as a soapbox. I've always believed that Wikipedia should be neutral and credible, and I've come to understand how our elegantly our core content policies help to achieve these goals. While these articles are not yet complete, they've come a long way, and I think that they are now the best resources on the subject on the Internet. I'm glad that I've had a role in that.
I also watch numerous articles, and repair vandalism, etc, on a regular basis. While less noteworthy, such work is essential to the credibility of the encyclopaedia.
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: As I mentioned in my answer to Q2, much of my work has involved circumcision. This is a controversial subject, and unfortunately there have been conflicts. I've learned a great deal while I've been editing, and I've made mistakes. I've always made a great effort to be polite, and to ask other users to familiarise themselves with the appropriate policies. When necessary, I've requested advice or assistance from appropriate persons, and I've also taken part in several forms of dispute resolution. Sometimes I've found the simplest approach - to do something else instead - works best.
I expect to deal with these problems in similar ways in future, though I hope my skills will continue to improve. If this request is granted, I would obviously not use admin tools in disputes that I'm involved with, but I would expect to be able to use these to help Wikipedia and other users in a general sense.

4 Why have you not been more active in your editing?

A: I'm sorry, I'm afraid that I don't fully understand what you're asking, so if my answer is insufficient, please ask for more detail.
Can I use the example of noticeboards? I often judge it unnecessary to report a vandal because I think (s)he has tired of it. Consequently my activity on admin noticeboards is lower than it might otherwise be, and while I may be able to offer useful advice, I believe that users mostly request help on such noticeboards because they believe that they need an admin's assistance. My feeling, and perhaps I'm mistaken, is that it's best to give users what they're expecting.
Comment I suspect that this question might refer to your relatively low levels of editing (e.g. 84 edits in December, 94 in September, only just over 100 in February and March). Are there reasons for this and would you expect to edit more regularly as an admin? --Robdurbar 13:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. I agree that many users edit more frequently, though I would point out that I edit practically every day. One reason is that I tackle difficult subjects and I go out of my way to research and provide information to others. This is particularly true of my talk page posts (~40%). For example, on the obviously quiet Dec 25, 2006, I spent considerable time locating fairly obscure, yet reliable information for another poster. At around the same time, I was exchanging numerous emails with a user, trying (with limited success) to help her understand suitable ways of presenting information in Wikipedia.
I would expect to edit more as an admin, yes. I tend to find challenges, and I would anticipate that once I had gained confidence in the new role I would look for interesting and probably time-consuming problems. (I'd want to tackle more straightforward requests as I gain experience.) I won't promise to clear any backlogs, but expect a handful of careful, thoughtful, and thorough admin or related actions per day, probably in situations that many others would be pleased to leave alone.
General comments

Discussion

Support

  1. Support as nominator. -- Avi 17:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong Support - Jakew has enough experiance to understand Wikipedia, and appears to have a reasonable need for better tools, he fights vandalism, and writes articles on topics that feature extensive vandalism and are commonly subject to attack. Most importantly, Jakew has shown through his interaction with vandals and personal attacks that hew is ready to become and administrator and maintain a level head despite all the abuse he may take from vandals. I believe that Jakew will make a great admin and call into question the editcountitis that seems to be affecting many voters in this RfA. --Matthew 22:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support looks good to me. Seems levelheaded with a strong edit history -- Samir धर्म 05:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Jake's a very good and responsible editor, who edits within the content policies and displays a lot of common sense. He has a nice balance of edits between articles (2,457) and article talk (1,561), which shows an appropriate level of interaction. He'll make an excellent admin. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support per nom. --tickle me 12:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support would make a great admin. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support per SlimVirgin. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 13:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support On the basis that he seems to be extremely civil and level-headed. WP needs people such as Jakew as admins. MetsFan76 14:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support per SV. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support per SV. Also, thoughtful and well balanced comments in RfCs give confidence. If this nom doesn't work out, then suggest you try again soon, possibly after gaining some more XfD experience. Addhoc 15:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. SupportGzuckier 15:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support per above.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 17:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Anomo 19:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support While the numbers may fall slightly below some editors' 'support' thresholds, the level-headed and mature approach of this user makes his having the mop an asset for the 'pedia. TewfikTalk 19:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support per Matthew and Tewfik. 6SJ7 20:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Unwavering Support. Jakew is one of the Project's greatest assets. Tomertalk 22:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Strong support a very credible candidate--Runcorn 21:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support per SlimVirgin. The Prince 01:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Nothing in this user's history leads me to believe this user will abuse the tools. IronDuke 03:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support per above. ugen64 04:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support per above. User:Cylonhunter
  22. Support per above. --GHcool 05:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. He's been here long enough to not make a mess on the rug. Penis-obsessed opposition is troubling; I'm not sure how his opinion on a medical issue will make him a bad (or good) admin. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 10:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Strong Support per above. Seems to be a very good candidate. Amoruso 11:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support changed from oppose - answered my concerns. --Robdurbar 15:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. Thoroughly understands wiki process, will be a brilliant mediator in difficult, ideology-driven debates. JFW | T@lk 23:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Strong Support. This one will make a superb editor. Plenty of edits. Plenty of BIG edits. Plenty of anti-vandalism. Sounds like a fine candidate to me. Captain panda Mussolini ha sempre tarche Quis ut Dues 01:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. Extremely knowledgeable editor who has a thorough grasp of content (and other) policies. Jayjg (talk) 01:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. I have edited (and lurked) at Circumcision for about a year now, and while I personally disagree with Jake quite frequently, he has proven to be very even-tempered and calm in debates. Few Wikipedians have impressed me as thoroughly with such dogged persistence in civility, despite some truly offensive insults and attacks he has endured. I don't know how competent he would be outside of circumcision-related articles, never having encountered him there, but I would trust him to be fair. Kasreyn 03:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose - not active enough, sorry! thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. I see no evidence that the nominee has "knowledge and application of wikipedia policy and guideline". There are only 246 edits in wikipedia space and 114 in wikipedia space talk in two years. The most recent contribution to XfD process was October 26; before that, July 6. Nearly all the candidate's article writing has pretty much been limited to two very narrow areas, which provides little indication of famility with wikipedia outside of that focus. While the nominee certainly appears trustworthy and a good contributor, I simply see no need for the tools or the requisite knowledge required for their use. I will most likely support once this candidate demonstrates a broader participation in the project. Agent 86 19:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. I have to agree with Agent 86 here, you don't appear to need the tools, or edit much outside of some fairly narrow areas. WP:PAIN was shut down over a week ago. I would also support if you broadened your editing and showed more familiarity with admin-related areas. Trebor 19:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC) Changing to neutral.[reply]
    Thanks. I've remarked on the need problem below in my response to Yuser31415. I'm sorry that WP:PAIN is no more. It was obvious that it needed a friend for some time, but I hadn't realised how badly. Jakew 20:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that you can't get involved with things like page protection until you have the tools, but you can still participate more in the Wikipedia namespace. Your XfD participation has been minimal, and it makes it very hard to ascertain whether you'd be able to close them correctly (or as correctly as possible). Similarly, it's hard to judge how well you understand policy without you making more policy-related edits. Trebor 20:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per above. Sorry about that, but it doesn't appear you actually need the tools! Yuser31415 20:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your comment. I agree: I do not need the tools. I edit Wikipedia because I can do so with the tools I have, and because I have something to offer. I believe the project benefits as a result. While I'd like to help, I don't perform admin-type tasks because I don't have the tools. I guess I'm saying that the "trust experiment" worked the first time, with the result that Wikipedia benefited, so let's see how much more I can help. Jakew 20:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That, however, is the point. You can perform admin-related tasks - go RC patrolling and revert vandalism, go NP patrolling and tag inappropriate articles under the WP:CSD criteria, comment on WP:AN, WP:ANI, and WP:AIV, and so on. You are a very much appreciated contributor here and I strongly appreciate it, but unless you can indicate a strong need for admin tools, I will have to oppose. The best time to make a RfA is when you are beginning to feel the limits of the tools you have. Best wishes and good luck in your future, and I hope you understand that I imply you will be a good admin later, but for the moment the bud needs to grow into a twig. Yuser31415 21:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose - PAIN is gone, one would expect RFA candidates to have twigged. Minimal projectspace editing, I do not find myself confident that this user knows policy sufficiently well. Moreschi Deletion! 21:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. Activity's low, but I'm more concerned about the low wikispace edits and the 9.79 avg. edit count. That's way too high and it shows to me you're not really willing to branch out.--Wizardman 22:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is is so disconcerting that a person hasn't edited enough in the WP space? Not editing policy does not necessarily equate to not knowing policy. --Matthew 22:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd have to disagree with you here. Firstly, there is the WP:PAIN incident; Jakew stated in his nomination that "... WP:PAIN could do with an extra pair of eyes ..."; well, WP:PAIN was shut down per pursuant discussion at WP:MFD. This indicates lack of participation in the very place stated to be his focus. Also, in the case of low WP space edits, exactly why do a lot of RfAs fail because of lack in either this projectspace or mainspace? Cheers. Yuser31415 23:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I concede the WP:PAIN incident is a strike against him, but I would still contend that a lack of WPspace edits do not imply a lack of policy knowledge. --Matthew 08:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Matthew, when people talk about not enough wikipedia space edits, it's not really about editing actual policy. We're looking for contributions to things like XfD, ANI, AN, AIV, etc to try to see how a candidate handles him/herself in admin areas. Jakew says he would like to help with XfD, PAIN (now mostly handled at ANI) and RFPP. These are all areas he can work in now without the tools. If he did so, we'd be able to see how he handles himself and how he applies policy knowledge in those areas and I'm sure people would then be happy to give him the tools. It's easy to give the tools out but much harder to take them away and I personally prefer giving them to people who have a good record in admin areas. Sarah 10:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sarah, I realise that you were replying to Matthew, but I want to thank you for explaining the reasoning that you're using. It's a different philosophy than my own (I would be more inclined to evaluate a few selected edits), but it's helpful to understand where you and others are coming from. Jakew 11:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your comment, Jake. WP edits aren't the only thing that I look at and I'm sure it's the same for the others. WP edits is just one factor. Another is plenty of talk because we want to see that a candidate doesn't have a problem talking with other editors and many RfA !voters also like to see plenty of mainspace contributions. I did look through your contributions, Jake. You look like an excellent editor and I wish you well. If this RfA doesn't get up, I do hope you come back in a couple of months. Cheers, Sarah 13:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose per Yuser31415. If you don't need the admin tools, don't request adminship. Edits as above are also limited in key places. Carpet9 23:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose. You have little experience in admin related tasks, so there's no reason to believe that you will actually perform them well. Like above, I also am not sure how far to trust someone who claims they will be active in an area that they are so inactive in, they don't realize it is gone. -Amarkov blahedits 00:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose per Agent86 and Moreschi. I would be open to supporting once a clear understanding of policies is shown through active participation in maintenance tasks and discussions as mentioned by Yuser31415. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose I have found Jakew misrepresenting (with colored language and out of context quotes) circumcision research study results. I have found Jakew to be the primary cabel of the circumcision topic; so I consider him responsible for it's current B Class status. The current topic outline is mostly his work, putting great emphasis on "benefits" and almost none on "risks" (which the medical community finds to be roughly equal). An administrator should help editors contribute, but Jakew works to wear down other editors. He has misrepresented reverts. Note that the editor nominating Jakew (Avi) worked closely him on the Circumcision topic. Here's some discussion [[1]] and a convenient link to the circumcision topic current coverage of sexual effect:[[2]] I find it frankly scary that he might get power in WP:PAIN and WP:RFPP ... which he says "would benefit from an additional pair of eyes."TipPt 05:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    TipPt, you make some serious allegations here. Can you provide diffs to back them up (particularly misrepresenting reverts, though I would also like to see evidence of POV pushing). Jeffpw 12:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's four recent instances: 1. Jakew packs the intro with pro-circ info covered properly in the cite, and twice in the body of the topic, before being covered again in it's own main section. See 2 next for link; 2. Jakew removes critical statements from the Australasian Med Assoc. Statement on Circumcision[3]. Here’s the original source [4] and the result [5] Note what he took out relative to what he forces left in the CPS Statement; 3. Jakew removes a critical sentence from a paragraph[6]. Here's a discussion with the original source, see number 10.[7]; 4. He forces me to place the resulting paragraph way away here [8]. I can't find the misrepresented revert; because someone has deleted my beinging the problem to the attention of the discussion...the subject and text are now gone.TipPt 22:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose: Not enough XfD to convince me the user is ready for the tools. Furthermore, the user seems to frequently revert good-faith (if often misguided) edits without giving a reason. I consider this an improper way to handle content disputes and would not be quick to trust this user with the rollback. Heimstern Läufer 05:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose There's just not enough participation and experience in general but particularly in WP. I would like to see you active in admin areas so I can get an impression of how you may handle yourself with the tools. There are many admin-type jobs you can do without actually being an administrator. Please try to get more experience and come back in a few months if you're still interested. Sarah 09:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose as per Sarah. --Duke of Duchess Street 22:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose Anyone who is familiar with the circumcision debate on the Internet recognizes Jake Waskett as a pro-circumcision activist. He is one of the Internet's most active promoters and defenders of non-therapeutic circumcision of children as an acceptable cultural practice. In my opinion it would be irresponsible for the Wikipedia community to grant administrator power to someone who is so dedicated to pushing one point of view of a controversial topic. -- DanBlackham 23:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's, quite frankly, the oddest reason for opposition I've ever seen. -Amarkov blahedits 23:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And it re-appears a little lower on this page, virtually word-for-word.--Anthony.bradbury 17:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    DanBlackham's statement & phraseology is appropos, succinct & polite, so I used 90% of it rather than just say "ditto" --MrEguy 03:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose per Agent 86 and Yuser31415. Jeffpw 12:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose A thoughy because I think that he's a pretty decent editor but in 2006 he averaged 212 edits a month in 2006 (and that includes the 600 month in October). An admin needs to be contributing regularly to Wikiedpia and to have the time and inclanation to contribute regulalry. No point in promoting someone who's not here enough. --Robdurbar 13:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose Lack of wikispace activity suggests unfamiliarity with process. Xoloz 18:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose Has potential, but needs to diversify.--Taxwoman 23:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose Anyone who is familiar with the circumcision debate on the Internet recognizes Jake Waskett as a pro-circumcision activist. He is one of the most active promoters of non-therapeutic circumcision of children as an acceptable cultural practice. In my opinion it would be highly irresponsible for the Wikipedia community to grant administrator power to someone who is so dedicated to pushing one point of view of a controversial topic. His personal bias is consistent and quite apparent. --MrEguy 00:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Um... okay, so I need to make my issue with this statement clearer. Why does being an activist mean you can't be neutral on Wikipedia? -Amark moo! 01:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't. But if he's editing articles on the subject in question, he's a high risk. And there are already people making claims. Coumarin 20:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    But look at the histories of those making the claims, and compare them to that of Jakew. I think you will find it enlightening. -- Avi 20:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ummm sorry if I sound dumb, but who is this "Jake Waskett?" If you are suggesting that Jake Waskett is the potential administrator, (which I am uncertain of) then how can you prove it? Captain panda Mussolini ha sempre tarche Quis ut Dues 01:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Because he says he is. -Amark moo! 01:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I am Jake Waskett. I'm just sorry that anyone feels that's a good reason to oppose. Jakew 11:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Jake, your name search returns 4,600 pages on Google. Seems you've been trolling parenting & children's web sites, newsgroups, etc. for a few years--becoming quite a well known circumfetishist. I'm not one bit fooled by this hypocritical charade; attempting to hide behind a masque of false neutrality. You're clearly using Wikipedia to further your own personal agenda. Your actions on Wikipedia confirm your bias. --MrEguy 04:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid I don't understand. Are Google hits a way to determine bias? If there were half the number, would I be half as biased? If I am biased, how do these hits represent my Wikipedia contributions? If I chose to hide my real name, would I be more or less suitable as an administrator? And I'm afraid I really don't understand what your second link is for - do personal attacks directed at myself affect my suitability? Jakew 11:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Read some of Jakew's statements in those discussion boards ... kids groups, parenting groups ect ... one sided at the least. See if you find a personal agenda. He brings that agenda to Wiki.TipPt 15:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose per all the above strong reasons. --Siva1979Talk to me 01:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose per above reasons, esp. WP:PAIN incident. Good editor, though! Kncyu38 06:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose I am 100% in agreement with Jakew on circumcision, but that does not mean that he is ready to be an admin yet. He will be one day.--R613vlu 22:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose per above statements concerning trolling, advocacy, and misrepresentation regarding circumcision, as well as my finding his non-article edits to be lacking. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral I was ready to put this under Support...but your Wikipedia edits simply don't compare to your mainspace edits. I think you deserve the mop, but after you become a little more active in Wikipedia pages. Ganfon 20:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral. Changing from oppose. I would prefer to see more participation in admin-related areas, but I don't think this user would misuse the tools. Trebor 21:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral Very little participation in admin-related tasks such as XfD discussions and vandal warning/reporting. You need to be active in these areas at a minimum and for several months in order to demonstrate a need for requiring the tools. I suggest withdrawal at this time. (aeropagitica) 21:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral Of your just over 5000 edits, 2607 are directly related to circumcision. You did concede that in your answers, which is why this is a neutral and not an oppose !vote, but it does mean that your contributions in policy-related areas are less than they might otherwise have been, and are at best marginal in terms of demonstration of knowledge of the workings of the project.--Anthony.bradbury 22:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jakew is very pro-circ. He removed an exact quote from the circumcision article... The “underside of the shaft of the penis, meaning the body below the corona” is a “source of distinct pleasure<ref>Hass K., Hass A. Understanding Sexuality, St Louis: Mosby, 1993: 99-100</ref>. That quote comes from a UCLA human sexuality textbook in it's ?5th edition ... hasn't changed over time ... has a slightly positive tone overall in the the stuff on circumcision. Jakew's removing that sentence is unconscionable.TipPt 16:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      How is it "unconscionable"? It has nothing whatsoëver to do with circumcision, and therefore has no place in the circumcision article. Tomertalk 00:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      The quote is in frenulum sensitivity, not circumcision[9]. The point is that he took out a critical statement for personal reasons. Search Google for Jake Waskett and see if you conclude he has a personal agenda. The nominating editor ... Avi ... has one too.TipPt 15:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral as per Anthony.bradbury and Sarah, I think a broader spectrum of edits and good solid background at XFD would result in a successful RFA next time round. The Rambling Man 11:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral needs some activity and participation in the projectspace. ← ANAS Talk? 13:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral You look like a good user, but it probably would be a good idea to get more experience in policy related areas. -- danntm T C 14:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral You seem a level headed user who edits one of the most controversial areas of the site and does so well. However, I would like to see better use of edit descriptions as I have seen a lot of use of 'rv' but nothing more. These, from having a quick look, make up around 5 - 10% of your edits which isn't a huge amount but it makes me think that a lot of the reverting on those articles could have been prevented with a more verbose message. I would support adminship if this improved. Also, hang round at WP:AN/I and some of the XfD pages as this will help too.-Localzuk(talk) 15:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. These suggestions make a lot of sense. Jakew 15:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral He would make a good admin but has a small amount of edits for the time he has been here. --James, La gloria è a dio 00:40, 21 January 2007 (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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Jakew&oldid=1146585264"