Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jmcw37

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Jmcw37

Final (12/41/12); withdrawn by candidate at 13:15, 14 February 2010.

Nomination

Jmcw37 (talk · contribs) – I would like to nominate myself as an administrator.

I withdraw my nomination. jmcw (talk) 13:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I have edited among the martial arts articles which suffer unreliable sources and enthusiastic uncompromising editors. I have experience with vandalism of the martial arts articles. I have some New Page Patrol activity and some AFD activity. I follow Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents and Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship regularly. I have no automated edits, no blocks and 100% edit summaries. I have few new pages but much development, cleaning and citing experience. My wiki joy is to find a citation and removing a 'citation needed' tag (which is one reason why my edit count is relatively low.) I believe in an admin recall system and I do not think admins should be bold in their duties.

Wiki editors I admire: User:Gwen_Gale, User:Moonriddengirl, User:Nate1481, User:Oda_Mari and User:Pdfpdf (who I thank for lessons in civility.)

In the spirit of

Instead of reviewing a person's actions and determining whether they have abilities to produce high-quality content, are good at negotiation, are able to form consensus, or able to mediate conflicts; people instead focus on number of edits and how long people have been here.

— User:Kim_Bruning

I would like to request to be judged on my activities of the last three years. In the interests of a low-stress RFA, I would request that people refrain from adding the optional questions and instead to look at my history. jmcw (talk) 19:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

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: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents and later Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR. I intend to continue slowly and considerately.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: Karate because of the difficulty of forming consensus and finding reliable sources.[[1]]

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: My most stressful article has been Talk:Oom_Yung_Doe/Archive_1 because the the article is notable because of the misbehavior of a living person. I feel I stretched my limits on the issues of BLP, RS, AGF, NPOV and CONS. I am not proud of the article but I am quite satisfied with the behavior of all the editors. As an example of how I would deal with conflict in the future, I offer User_talk:Yakudza19#Continuation_of_Continuation_of_unblock_review.

Additional optional questions from Doc Quintana

4. Excuse me for not respecting your request, but if you're going to run for admin, you should be able to answer questions. That being said, what is your opinion on the implentation of IAR?

A: For editors, IAR is an application of the Golden Rule concerning consensus: that is, an editor may act against common custom if they believe that their act improves Wiki. I do not believe that an admin may ignore rules: they have a higher responsibility to form consensus before they change a custom. jmcw (talk) 09:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from Pmlineditor

5. I accept that having to answer several questions during an RfA may not be an entirely pleasant/easy task; however, in spite of that, there are some questions I wish to ask you. You have minimal participation in so-called "admin" areas such as UAA, RFPP, PERM AIV and even ANI. Why do you wish to be an admin if you do not edit such pages? Do you envision yourself participating in these areas as an admin? What do you need the tools for?

One can gain experience on the issues covered by AVI, RS and ANI by directly speaking with people. Although it is large, have you looked through Talk:Oom_Yung_Doe/Archive_1? In the area where I work, I image the main use of the tools would be making order in the use of diacritic marks in article titles. Incidents and 3RR would be future areas where my experience could be of service.

Additional optional questions from ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒

6. Which view of the following two would you be more prone to support?:

• (a) Edit count is an important factor for selecting administrators. Administrators should be chosen only if they have a substantial edit count on Wikipedia, with the reference point being a minimum of 12,000 edits (and at least 3000 being non-automated ones).
• (b) The main work of administrators, as the word suggests, is administration of Wikipedia rules and regulations, and not editing. Therefore, the edit count is a wrong factor to be used as a benchmark.

A:(c) I think that any editor in good-standing with a record of good work, civility and consensus building should be given the mop. Due to the diversity of human aspirations, some will work exclusively in vandal fighting, some will man the help desk and some will very occasionally rename an article. All of these actions improve Wikipedia: I support all of the different people who work to improve Wikipedia, each in their own chosen way.

Postmortem: Edit count in admin space is more important factor than edit count in article space. jmcw (talk) 13:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

General comments

• Links for Jmcw37: Jmcw37 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Jmcw37 can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Jmcw37 before commenting.

Discussion

• Edit stats posted to the talk page. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 19:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Support

1. Support mature and sensible-minded user who seems highly unlikely to abuse tool access. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 20:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
2. Support. Seems level-headed enough and a hard worker. PeterbrownDancin (talk) 03:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
3. How dare someone opt to not entertain the optional queries?! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

   It is merely a convention of some users to label their questions as optional. There is nothing in the rules of RfA that specifies that additional questions must be considered as such. Keepscases (talk) 15:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

4. Support. a) Thinks before he acts. b) Has a sense of humour. c) Give me quality over quantity any day!! d) Agree with Deliriousandlost and PeterbrownDancin. d) Knows the right amount to offer as a bribe to get what he wants. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
5. Support per telling us not to do a normal blown out of proportion RFA process, by not answering the gambit of questions. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 17:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
6. Supportper User:Juliancolton--NotedGrant Talk 17:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

   My support is moral in nature; please take my opinion with a grain of salt. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

7. Support I see no evidence that this user will misuse the tools. Seems level headed and responsible. --rogerd (talk) 19:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
8. Support Keep up the good work and learn from your mistakes. I think it would good if you acknowledged why people think it's important to ask questions of admin candidates and withdrew your opposition to it. Also, please indicate whether you can do a competent rendition of Wikipedia:Song/The RfA Candidate's Song. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

   I have answered the optional questions concerning my motivation because that might not be clear from my activities in my past three years. I fear my lack of experience shows concerning the 'The RfA Candidate's Song': if I do not succeed in this attempt at RFA, I promise to post a rendition to commons before my next attempt. jmcw (talk) 21:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

9. Weak Support: Great content contribution but the areas you're proposing you will work in need some experience. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
10. Support Needs more experience, but odds are the user won't misuse the tools.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 16:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
11. Support per User:A_Nobody/RfA#RfA_Standards in that 1) Happy Valentine's Day (it would not be all that loving of me to oppose someone today...); 2) we have had no memorable negative interactions in any AfDs; and as 3) candidate has been editing for over three years and has amassed over two thousand edits and in that time, the candidate has never been blocked. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
12. Moral support. The nom has been withdrawn, so I'm not reviewing whether the candidate would make a good admin. But I did want to give a shout out about the calm, cool responses to the opposes. Good work there, and I have great hopes for a future RfA.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose, with Moral Support - I'm sorry to be the first one to oppose, but I don't feel like you have enough experience in admin-related areas. You only have 165 WP space edits, yet you say you're interested in doing WP:AN3 work as well as past experience with vandalism. I would have expected to see much more activity, including at WP:AIV, since you said you're an active vandalism reverter. Also, from what I can tell, you've participated very little at WP:ANI, another area that you expressed interest in. It does look like you're fairly active at WP:AFD, which is good, because around here candidates seem to have been getting hammered lately for lacking experience there. In other words, diversify your experience and keep up the good work and I think you might make a fine candidate in the future. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 19:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

   Comments - a) Quantity .ne. Quality b) Three years is a lot of experience. c) "You only have 165 WP space edits" So what? There are bots with tens of thousands of edits, but ZERO capability as an admin. d) He does make a "fine" candidate NOW. --Pdfpdf (talk) 12:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

   Yes but looking at those 165 edits in the wikipedia namespace [2] almost all of them are related to karate. Next to no experience in other areas, looks like a danger admin tools would be used in the only area of wikipedia that this user is interested in where there could clearly be a conflict of interest. Polargeo (talk) 14:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

   So now having an interest in, or knowledge of, a subject area is a conflict of interest? I appreciate your desire for versatility but did you mean that the way it looked to me?--otherlleft 15:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

   If all of the content building is in one area there is no issue however, all of the vandal fighting and AfD experience is in the same area as the content building. I would ask the question directly to the user but they have expressed they are judged on their contributions so this is what I have done. Polargeo (talk) 15:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

   Okay, so you feel constrained by the candidate's request, which makes sense to me. I'd hate to have a precedent that suggests (for example) that User:Arthur Rubin not be permitted to edit math articles (although not editing Arthur Rubin is clearly a good idea).--otherlleft 15:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

   However, I have looked through many of this candidates AfD contributions and I would not be comfortable with this candidate closing karate AfDs. Polargeo (talk) 15:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

2. Oppose (edit conflict) You have great content contribution longevity, and I thank you for that, however the areas you're proposing you will work in need some experience. I don't feel you have enough experience at WP:ANI and WP:AN3 yet, but that doesn't mean I'll never trust you. I simply think it's prudent to get a little more activity in the Wikipedia namespace first. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

   Comment - Quantity .ne. Quality --Pdfpdf (talk) 12:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

   Perhaps, but no edits to many places administrators will be involved in means the experience is not demonstrated. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 21:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

3. Oppose Sorry, but asking people not to ask questions draws an automatic oppose from me. Looie496 (talk) 19:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
4. Oppose - Various statements in the self-nom rubbed me the wrong way - especially listing editors whom you admire, which is little more than hoping to gain support from them, and those who they associate with. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

   I listed the editors so that people would know something about my values. jmcw (talk) 20:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

   I am sure that was partly your intention, but it just comes off rather immature and sycophantic. Your values should be revealed through your edits and answers to the questions, not a laundry list of editors in good standing. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

   "Sycophantic". Wisdom, your vocabulary never ceases to amaze me. Useight (talk) 00:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

   Sometimes I amaze even myself : ) Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

5. Oppose per general low activity in WP space combined with the nomination statement. I can't get behind a candidate who in their nomination requests no questions; questions are too much a part of this process (despite nearly never asking any myself.) Bradjamesbrown (talk) 20:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

   Oppose A new user looks to admins as experienced and may ask questions not related to the core areas at which youd like to work. If a new user comes to you and asks a question (possibly about policy), you cant tell him to look at your contributions for the answer. And perferabbly you cant refer them elsewhere all the time. Not all questions are based on knowledge or experince but can be hypothetcial, the unknown. Something you havent encountered or seen. Many questions asked on RFA are related to these 'unknown' issues. That said I respectfully request you re-consider allowing individuals here to ask you questions so in order to better understand your character and these qualities. Adminship is never stress free, such as editing as a regular user is never stress free. Sorry but for now I have no choice but to oppose (for now, but am fully happy to reconsider). Ottawa4ever (talk) 21:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC) Will reconsider based on user answering Doc Q's question. Jmcw has shown s/he'll answer a question, even if he/she does not necessairly want to be judged based on questions asked. That is to be respected. Ottawa4ever (talk) 10:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

6. Oppose. The candidate is light on experience in most wikispaces. The candidate's statement leads me to believe that he's not yet ready for the mop. Majoreditor (talk) 01:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
7. Oppose. Per concerns with experience, the nomination statement, and answers to questions. Perhaps in a few months and several thousand more edits. -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 03:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
8. Weak Oppose per several of the above. Someone not willing or wanting to answer questions should not be an admin. I'm thinking of asking a question regardless of the candidate's request. Doc Quintana (talk) 03:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)Changed to weak oppose due to question answering.Doc Quintana (talk) 18:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
9. Oppose I would oppose even if this RfA were unanimous support because of your not willing to answer additional questions. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 03:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
10. Oppose I wouldn't automatically oppose with a candidate who has between 2000 and 4000 edits, however, I would expect to see more experience in certain admin areas. Only 168 edits to the wikipedia namespace is fairly low. People above have mentioned that it is good that you have AfD experience. If you had good general AfD experience I would count this as a plus but you only really have experience in karate related AfDs. As an admin you would be expected to operate in areas other than karate. In fact using your admin tools to fight vandals and handle deletions within the area you edit is generally frowned upon. I see very little experience outside of the karate area of wikipedia and so there is no way I can assess your general abilities and knowledge just looking at your contributions. Polargeo (talk) 11:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
11. Oppose You should have also asked that we refrain from oppose votes. Then this would have passed for sure. Keepscases (talk) 14:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
12. Moral Support but Oppose - The two areas you intend to work in, you have a total of 150 edits combined. I am not one to have editcountitis, and I respect the quote you mentioned, but this time, I am forced to oppose because of the edit count. Terribly sorry. smithers - talk 15:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
13. Oppose (I would have added moral support, but request not to ask any further questions is a big no-no). Willingness to help further is very commendable, but experience is currently lacking. Also, doesn't really seem to understand IAR. I'd suggest working on some admin-related areas, learning more about policy issues, and then trying again from a more experienced position, with sufficient humility to be open to any questions anyone wishes to ask -- Boing! said Zebedee 15:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
14. Oppose per statement. "Wikipedians I admire" seems more like "popular Wikipedians I really hope vote for me", and attempting to ward off candidate questions is a major faux pas. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

    They are people I work with regularly. jmcw (talk) 16:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

15. Oppose Lacks appropriate level of clue. Hipocrite (talk) 16:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
16. Oppose per the candidate's lack of experience, especially in the general "admin areas" and the Wikipedia namespace. The request to not ask questions and the "Wikipedians I admire" section (which, to me, seems to simply be an attempt to canvass the support of those editors) are also major turn-offs. Laurinavicius (talk) 17:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
17. Oppose, would like to see some additional levels of experience in varied capacities. Cirt (talk) 18:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
18. Oppose - Unfortunately I don't see anything that demonstrates the experience needed to be an admin. Quality vs. Quantity might hold true in some circumstances, but I just can't see it in this case. 2.5k edits in over 3 years isn't active enough. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 19:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
19. Oppose A desire not to be asked questions indicates a prospective admin unresponsive to others' concerns. Ray^Talk 19:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
20. Oppose If you cannot handle a "stressful" RfA, then how would ever deal with some of the stressful situations that you will run into as an admin? If you do not want additional questions that allow us to see that you have the power of thought and can actually show us your skills and abilities, then how will you answer questions when someone asks why you performed a specific task. When we interview someone at work, we do not just read their past work, we want to know if they "fit" - same thing here. Although I see some good work, I am afraid that I have to oppose based on the sheer audacity that we can/could/should be shut out of asking additional questions. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
21. Oppose - Per "I do not think admins should be bold in their duties". — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 22:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
22. Oppose – while I appreciate your desire to become an administrator, I don't think you're quite ready at the moment (despite the fact that you've been around for about 3 1/2 years). You seem to have good mainspace edits, but I'm not sure you're able to negotiate and discuss with other editors about thing, as you seem not to talk much. I do understand that it is difficult to gain experience as far as 3RR is concerned, but participating in the dispute resolution process may help a little (such as providing editor assistance or third opinions) and try to help prevent edit-warring. Also continue to work on building up articles as you have been as well as maybe also participating in some deletion discussions just so you get some experience in those fields. –MuZemike 00:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
23. Oppose - I was going to go neutral, but after reading that the nominee didn't want to answer questions and sought a "low-stress" RfA I feel I must oppose. While certainly no one intends to cause you stress, I believe that an admin needs to be able to handle stress, as it seems to go with the territory on occasion (regrettably). This is even less important than the questions part of the statement--answering questions, and explaining things, etc. is one of the fundamental tasks of an administrator, as I see it, and if you don't think you are up to that task, then perhaps this RfA is premature. I'm not knocking your editing abilities or seeking to offend you, but I personally feel that the willingness to answer questions that will aid others in determining whether one is trusted enough to become an admin is essentially a prerequisite. Best of luck in this RfA and in the future, but I cannot, in good conscience, vote support here. Cocytus [»talk«] 00:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
24. Oppose " I think this RfA may be a little too pre-mature.-- iBen 03:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
25. Oppose Sorry, but I see barely any activity in the areas he says he will be involved in - less than 3 edits to both. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
26. Definitely a great content editor and has shown a high level of maturity. However, adminship is not about writing content; it is about pushing certain buttons. While his enthusiasm is commendable, I feel uncomfortable supporting a candidate who has no experience in the admin areas. I know I opposed; however, this is also a moral support. Come back again with more experience in the right areas. Pmlineditor ∞ 11:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
27. I was abstaining, but since Jmcw37 has requested the early closure be reversed I assume they are after additional input :) Like many other participants here I'm seeing a very competent content editor who is courteous, trustworthy, meticulous and most importantly, understands WP:V. The reason I'm opposing is solely the nomination statement; volunteering for adminship is volunteering to put yourself "in harm's way" and two prerequisites for survival are a high tolerance for stress and a willingness to communicate (sometimes ad nauseum). True, it's possible to avoid problems to a large extent by staying away from difficult areas, but as an admin Jmcw37 will be turned to by other editors to help solve their problems and sooner or later will step into potentially stressful situations. I strongly suspect Jmcw37 was merely asking commenters to be kind and didn't intend to imply that they can't cope with stress and would rather avoid communication, but the impression has been left nonetheless. Sorry I can't support for adminship; you seem like a fine editor and frankly we need more like you building content. EyeSerene^talk 12:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
28. Oppose per Looie496--SPhilbrickT 13:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
29. Oppose per Pmlineditor. Airplaneman ^talk 15:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
30. Oppose per MuZemike. Will be a good administrator in the future but not ready at present. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
31. Oppose Per Cocytus and too little experience.  fetchcomms☛ 18:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
32. Oppose - I wasn't going to bother to comment, but the applicant (supplicant?) has expressed a wish to avoid a WP:SNOW closure and see what constructive criticism might result (a la WP:ER). Looking over contributions I don't see many negatives, it's what I don't see that leads me to oppose. Overall, my concern is with a lack of experience (like many here) and a desire to avoid stress. As to the latter, while few sane people actively seek stressful situations, any active administrator is guaranteed to be faced with potentially stressful incidents. Whether it is an angry sockpuppet vandalizing your user space and trying to drag your reputation into the mud, or editors questioning your judgment (some saying you are too soft on someone, and too hard on someone, for the same event) you are going to face things much worse than probing questions. If you can't handle that, do yourself a favor and just be the best editor you can be. As to the experience, my suggestion is to get involved in areas outside of the karate-related articles. There must be something else to interest you. Wikipedia namespace is a great way to get a feel for how the administrative side of things work, and volunteering to help people at one or more noticeboards will go a long way toward making a future RfA attempt more successful. -- Atama頭 20:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

    "The question posed with every RfA is "Can this user be trusted with the administrator tools? Making a decision whether to trust an unfamiliar candidate is often difficult." - Wikipedia:Getting the most out of a request for adminship. "If a trustworthy person does not use the tools at all, there is absolutely no harm done. If they use them even once to good effect, then their adminship has served a purpose". - Wikipedia:Getting the most out of a request for adminship. jmcw (talk) 00:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

33. Oppose, may I join in the recommendations that you gain some more experience in admin areas before re-applying? Whilst you are correct in the fact that adminship is about trust, trust is gained through experience, and thus if you gain some more experience in admin areas those who oppose this time may be supporting next time. As you stated yourself, making a decision whether to trust an unfamiliar candidate is often difficult, thus a strong collection of project work can help to make the decision easier. Best of luck, happy editing to you, --Taelus (talk) 02:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
34. Oppose, as per talk page discussion. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 08:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
35. Feedback You have too few edits outside article-space for me to truly judge your understanding of policies and practices that admins need to be familiar with. On the other hand, from what I have seen you are an even keeled and intelligent person, so I have substantial confidence that you'll be able to pick up and follow those policies as and when needed. What pushed me to add my comment in this section though, is your wish to avoid optional questions at your RFA in interest of low stress. That is a valid desire for a volunteer devoting their time to this project; however with adminship editors take on the responsibility to handle contentious issues, disruptive editors, and inevitable complaints and if one is not ready for the additional stress, it just leads to an eventual burnout, or worse, flameout. Hope you continue enjoy editing after this RfA, and think over whether you really want to volunteer for the additional tools in a few months time. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 10:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
36. Oppose Has shown poor judgement in several areas. Keeping this RfA open against advice in order to use it as an editor review is one of them. My constructive criticism would be to reflect more on any advice offered, and to work in a range of areas across Wikipedia to get a broader knowledge. Try working in some of the maintenance areas as that gives the community some confidence that you are committed to working for the project and are able to make regular good judgments on everyday policies and guidelines - people sometimes work on the backlog for merging, or splitting, or sourcing BLPs, or do newpages patrol - find what works for you. And/or work in some conflict resolution areas or welcoming new users, or answering questions at the help desk - stuff that shows you are willing and able to deal with other people and help out, and resolve conflicts. Essentially, the stars of Wikipedia are the content producers - admins are the janitors who ensure that the content producers can do their work with as little hassle as possible. Some people are able to be both notable content producers and admins - though in an RfA the community would like to see a lot of the evidence of the qualities of an admin rather than the qualities of a content producer, though working an article through to GA or FA can help, as that often requires collaboration and following procedure - qualities admired in a prospective admin. I will now again suggest to Jmcw37 that this RfA be withdrawn. SilkTork *^YES! 13:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

    You present me with a dilemma: shall I give in to the stress you are exerting or shall I continue to try to gather useful feed back as you yourself have offered? Both actions would show me in a worse light. This is not an editor review : it is a judgment by the community of my judgment. I accept that the community does not support me at this time. I am looking for constructive suggestions - pile-on oppose votes are neutral in value now. jmcw (talk) 21:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

    SilkTork, the candidate has acknowledged that this is not an editor review, and is instead specifically focused on those qualities that the community finds valuable in administrators. Granted, the candidate's hope for further constructive criticism is not being met particularly well, but I don't see how this RfA remaining open will negatively affect his or her future chances - other than in your opinion, of course. Since you have indicated that it has already caused damage in your eyes, is there any reason you can't simply unwatch this page as the candidate seeks to find out if there are any other areas where improvement would be helpful? If this RfA had been opened as a form of editor review I would agree with you, but it was created in good faith, so what harm is there in letting in run its course?--otherlleft 00:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

    By keeping this open even though people have suggested to you to close it - indeed it has been closed once, and you re-opened it - you are putting your own concerns above those of the community. You have been informed that there is an appropriate route for you to gather some opinions on your editing, but you still insist on getting people on this RfA to tell you that you are not ready, and that you need more experience. When you apply again, this RfA will be linked, and people will look at this and form an impression. It's not going to be a positive one, and it's getting worse. The longer you leave this RfA open, the longer you will need to leave between now and getting another RfA accepted, and the more you will have to do to show that you have gained in maturity and judgement. You are wasting the community's time and doing your reputation harm. People will overlook this in time, but you are making it difficult for yourself. SilkTork *^YES! 23:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

    "You are wasting the community's time and doing your reputation harm." Quite honestly, Silk, there is no harm in keeping this RfA open for a few more days. Seeking input over what areas an editor needs to improve on and what he is doing wrong, cannot be labeled "bad judgement". Nor is he doing his reputation any harm in keeping it open. Regarding your comment on his seemingly selfish attitude (as I've interpreted it with "you are putting your own concerns above those of the community."), since when was it a community concern that a RfA of an established editor remains closed prematurely, against the expressed wishes of the editor in question? —Dark 08:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

37. Oppose - Candidate does not display the judgment required for the mop at this time. Yes, I closed this RfA early at 9/25/5, but my oppose is not in response to candidate's desire to reopen, however ill-advised that may have been. For me, "I will withdraw on Monday afternoon", after nine additional opposes (and no supports) were added, is more of the same "I'll do it my way" that is displayed by requesting no questions be asked. It's just not how RfA works, and more to the point, it's not how the community works. It's a shame because contributions look good and I'm not the first one on this page to say I could support at a later date, but sound judgment is possibly even more important than content contributions in an administrator.  Frank  |  talk  15:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
38. Oppose - Because 1. the candidate has a low count in the areas where admins are likely or supposed to be reasonably active, and able to excercise sound judgement, and 2. because instead of answering the questions directly, he/she is telling the RfA reviewers how they should evaluate him/her.--Kudpung (talk) 16:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
39. Oppose When I first saw this RfA, I was veering towards a neutral, but as you seem to want to subject yourself to this continuing although a close was offered, I assume you are after feedback! I feel that you are a good contributor to the encyclopedia (in common with most of the editors who have commented here), but I feel that you are not ready to be an admin yet. Looking for a stress-free RfA is everyone's hope (I was lucky in that my recent RfA was not stressful!), but as an admin, you are opening yourself to stress (one of the first IRC messages I got was "welcome to hell!" from another admin!). Also, the questions that crop up at RfA give you an opportunity to show both how well you understand policies and how well you can explain yourself. As an admin, you would be expected to explain your actions if required. I hope to be able to support you at a future date -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
40. Oppose I hate to pile it on, but your not quite ready. Sorry :)--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 17:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
41. Oppose - per little experience in admin-related areas. What about increase your edit count in the admin-related areas, and I will support you on a future date. Right now, let's close this per WP:SNOW. December21st2012Freak ^{Happy Valentines Day!} at 18:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral leaning towards oppose I'm not sure about your 'cooling' skills. Although it was ages ago I was fairly concerned with what happened here. Other than that you have had a lot of experience. I also don't know if you were "admin coached" either. Minimac94 (talk) 19:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

   I invite you to review Talk:Oom_Yung_Doe/Archive_1 where this Wikiquette Alert played a roll. jmcw (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

2. Neutral You have the spirit but lack the experience. Come back with more edits and experience and I will likely support. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

   Comments - a) Quantity .ne. Quality b) Three years is a lot of experience. --Pdfpdf (talk) 12:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

   You do a lot of badgering for someone who was just thanked for his civility. And welcome to RfA, by the way. Keepscases (talk) 15:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

   I beg your pardon? When did responding to someone's comment with another comment become badgering? I expect that you are referring to the fact that several people made observations on this matter central to their comments, and I replied to each of them. OK. Please advise the method that you feel I should have used to engage each individual in an explanation and justification of their comment(s). In this particular case, (i.e. this particular person, Ktr101), my comment achieved its objective successfully - Ktr101 provided a response that addressed my comment. In fact, addressed it very well. However, very few other editors, if any, have bothered to explain WHY they feel that a large number of edits of unspecificed quality is essential to admin qualification, is superior to a small number of high quality edits, and why a small number of high quality edits is NOT adequate. Oh yes - thank you for your welcome. Yes, you are correct, I rarely involve myself in rfa discussion; these may possibly be my first contributions. Pdfpdf (talk) 01:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

   quod erat demonstrandum. jmcw (talk) 00:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

   I thanked Pdfpdf for lessons in civility, not for his civility<g>. Thank you, Pdfpdf, I think the people here now understand quantity .ne. quality. jmcw (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

   I meant experience to mean that he doesn't have all-around experience. Three years is a boost though. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

3. Neutral This RfA is premature, but Jmcw37's spirit should be commended. Warrah (talk) 17:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
4. Neutral but would like to support this candidate, seems like he could be a good admin and his experience with AfD is a plus but the lack of main space edits is a let down as well as some other concerns raised. If the candidate can show a couple of months productive work in the main space and address other concerns raised here I believe I would support this candidate if he returns in a couple of months time.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
5. Premature at this time: suggest withdrawal. Jonathunder (talk) 18:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
6. Neutral I assume that youve re-opened your RFA for feedback purposes. Some advice I would say before running another RFA is to participate at the Help desk. I believe this will put others at ease (at least myself) as you can demonstrate Policy knowledge (building this also there) and that your not afraid to answer queries as well and deal with moments of stress for other editors. Addtionally your edits are consitant for a long period of time. But you range from about 10 to 100 edits a month, while you (others) argue quantity vs quality, I still think you need to double or even triple your involvment in the project. This can easily be done by branching out from Karate related articles (you could still contribute there) but you could also contribute in other areas as well. Same stories just different topics. Finally I would suggest for constructive feedback as well you consider Wikipedia: Editor Review after your RFA or down the road. You'll get alot of benefit from that I think. That aside theres much potential from you, innovatation and good spirits. Good luck with your future editing. Ottawa4ever (talk) 11:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

   Good advice from Ottawa4ever; I've found that researching answers to questions at the Help desk is very helpful in learning more about the policies. I'll also put in a personal plea that Requests for feedback is often understaffed, helping out there on selected requests would help you branch out into other areas.--SPhilbrickT 13:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

   Noted. Thank you both! jmcw (talk) 00:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

7. Neutral, and commenting for the same reason as Ottawa. I assume you will happily answer questions in your next RfA ;) As for diversification of your involvement consider scaling your activity at New Page Patrol. It automatically leads you into the farthest areas of Wikipedia, from inappropriate usernames to copyvios. The "patrol" itself does not clock an edit but you will find plenty of things to improve. Good luck also from me, you'll make an excellent admin. --Pgallert (talk) 12:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

   Noted. Thank you. jmcw (talk) 00:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

8. Neutral, echoing Warrah. I would love to support next time, if the experience is there. Tan | 39 14:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
9. Neutral. Whilst I don't expect that the user will misuse the tools I fail to be convinced by the need and readiness for the tools. I'm not so concerned about the edit count as the lack of proven experience in admin-related areas. Consider this a moral support. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 15:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
10. Neutral: Per WP:AGF. This is probally one of the rare times I use that. I have trust in the editor, but I always say you need evidence to back up your opinion. I can't pull enough relevant evidence. (My Guildlines are at User:MWOAP/RfA voting) -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 00:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
11. Neutral Edit count shouldn't determine a person's ability to be an admin. However, experience sure lets people know of your achievements and stances. I doubt the user will fail to use the tools, but I'm not sure they have the experience or need to (of course, I don't edit in Karate) have admin tools. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 02:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
12. Neutral - Next time, I'd be more than happy to support, if experience issues are addressed. Better luck next time! Connormah (talk | contribs) 17:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

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.