Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Jakec
My views so far
[edit]I thought I'd post here to let others know what I've found so far. This thread is a bit of an experiment. It could promote group think. But, it could also help !voters gather and share information to better understand if the candidate would be a good admin. So, please tell me if this sort of post is inappropriate. Anyway:
Nice guy. Good AfD votes. I went through all his talk archives and he seems nice, calm, helpful, never rude. Good manner. I see bulk archiving with no surgical removal of selected unfavourable threads. If there are any skeletons in the closet, I'd like to know. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- Here's one likely skeleton: the guy reverted a speedy deletion notification posted to his talk page as "rv test" on 28 January 2015. ([1]) Was that really just a test or was it his page getting nominated? The article got deleted. Having a recently speedy deleted article on your record is likely to kill your RFA, and Jake surely knows this. Was he trying to erase it from his record with that possibly deceptive edit summary? Only an admin can tell us... 77.56.43.252 (talk) 02:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- The article, the PRODded CalcBee, was created by Ahaanomegas. Jakec tagged it as A7 when the PROD had expired (not really necessary, but okay). Ahaanomegas copy pasted the speedy notification from his user talk to Jakec's talk. Jakec's revert as "Rv test." was fine. Plus, his edit summary "Rv test." assumed good faith. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- I see... how about these: inappropriately canvassing an editor he knows for a fact will support his RFA ([2]), tons of spurious UAAs for borderline cases like (most recently) New Old World ([3]) or Surfwyoming ([4]), which indicate he's likely to drive away useful contributors by blocking them for borderline username policy violations if given the ability to block, lack of genuine will to help new editors (other than when he's doing so publicly to earn brownie points at the teahouse perhaps), as seen here: ([5]) where he nominates an article for deletion whose title asks the question 'How do you create redirect' which is obviously a new user wanting instructions, but Jake fails to provide these instructions because why bother, right? Nobody's looking. If you look at his user page, you'll notice a ridiculous amount of barnstars he keeps there, possibly a sign of megalomania - which is even more likely considering his old usernames were 'King jakob c' (a king, huh??) and 'King jakob c 2'. He also has no blocks in the logs of any of the accounts which to me always raises a red 'undisclosed SPs more than likely' flag... hmmmm... 77.56.43.252 (talk) 03:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- Seriously? AGF. --AmaryllisGardener talk 04:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- New Old World was a promotional username, they were trying to create an article for a band of the same name.
- Surfwyoming was trying to insert a certain "surfwyoming.com" into an article. Those were good UAA reports.
- The canvassing accusation is a bit ridiculous. There's nothing wrong with telling someone you're at RfA.
- It's suspicious to have a clean block log? Better file an SPI for me and most of the administrative corps, then.
- This however does give me some pause. I agree it was clearly a newbie looking for help, and I don't know why he didn't simply answer their question. Then again, the deleting admin didn't do so either. Not something to oppose over, certainly, but I don't know whether it's something that warrants further investigation... Swarm X 05:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- Well, I'd better go file an SPI against myself, I didn't realise I had undisclosed accounts but I must do given my clean block log. Sam Walton (talk) 13:12, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- That makes two of us, then. Off to SPI I go... --Biblioworm 15:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- Three, take me away. --AmaryllisGardener talk 15:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- Seriously? AGF. --AmaryllisGardener talk 04:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- I see... how about these: inappropriately canvassing an editor he knows for a fact will support his RFA ([2]), tons of spurious UAAs for borderline cases like (most recently) New Old World ([3]) or Surfwyoming ([4]), which indicate he's likely to drive away useful contributors by blocking them for borderline username policy violations if given the ability to block, lack of genuine will to help new editors (other than when he's doing so publicly to earn brownie points at the teahouse perhaps), as seen here: ([5]) where he nominates an article for deletion whose title asks the question 'How do you create redirect' which is obviously a new user wanting instructions, but Jake fails to provide these instructions because why bother, right? Nobody's looking. If you look at his user page, you'll notice a ridiculous amount of barnstars he keeps there, possibly a sign of megalomania - which is even more likely considering his old usernames were 'King jakob c' (a king, huh??) and 'King jakob c 2'. He also has no blocks in the logs of any of the accounts which to me always raises a red 'undisclosed SPs more than likely' flag... hmmmm... 77.56.43.252 (talk) 03:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- The article, the PRODded CalcBee, was created by Ahaanomegas. Jakec tagged it as A7 when the PROD had expired (not really necessary, but okay). Ahaanomegas copy pasted the speedy notification from his user talk to Jakec's talk. Jakec's revert as "Rv test." was fine. Plus, his edit summary "Rv test." assumed good faith. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Point of Order
[edit]Not 100% sure on this, but for consistency and to avoid confusion, shouldn't this be moved to
- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jakec 2 and then
- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jakec be redirected to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/King jakob c 2
Rgrds. --64.85.216.212 (talk) 12:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think it makes much difference. I had an unsuccessful RFA under a previous username. When I was renamed the bureaucrat created a redirect from an RFA with this username to the RFA. When I submitted my second RFA I created it with a 2. The redirect was later deleted and my RFA was moved to a name without a 2 with an explanaiton that it was the first RFA under this name. -- GB fan 12:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah it's considered OK to start an RFA under a new username without putting 2 or 3 or wahtever in the title. Could perhaps put a link to his old RFA in the Discussion section, not that it matters, because he's going to get roasted with or without it. Is "rgrds" a common closing summary? I never picked up on that before the Arbcom case, I used to use it myself but now I dont. —Soap— 14:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- For the purposes of being informative to the participants, I don't think it makes a difference. I'm going to look at some of the associated templates we use with RFA such as {{Recent RfX}} and {{Rfarow}}. I think there it may have a technical impact. I'll check with the candidate before moving the page if I find it will have an impact. Mkdwtalk 18:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah it's considered OK to start an RFA under a new username without putting 2 or 3 or wahtever in the title. Could perhaps put a link to his old RFA in the Discussion section, not that it matters, because he's going to get roasted with or without it. Is "rgrds" a common closing summary? I never picked up on that before the Arbcom case, I used to use it myself but now I dont. —Soap— 14:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Semi-protection
[edit]I have semi-protected this candidacy for its duration; when I have to revert nonsense like this, leaving it unprotected doesn't seem wise. Acalamari 14:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- It seems to actually be template-protected. --Jakob (talk) 14:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- That was my error. Now fixed. Acalamari 14:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- And I have semi-protected this page for the same reason. -- GB fan 15:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Signature not matching username
[edit]I like what User:DexDor wrote. So, User:Jakec, there may be a move from neutral to support of you change it. With non-admin accounts, mismatches are confusing (and in my opinion should not be allowed), but as an admin, a matching signature would sure help newcomers and others. Would you consider changing it? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
- I already have changed my signature.
--Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 23:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
- Hopefully it's sufficiently clear, but if not, I can modify it further. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 23:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
- Hmmmmm, fine print, eh? I guess it is a step in the right direction. Wikipedia is absolutely overwhelming for newcomers, so that is just one more thing for them to deal with. I like to make things as clear as possible for them, and am willing to sacrifice my own personal preferences in order to do that. Would you consider "Jakec (talk)"? (If you do not want to, that is okay. It is not a huge issue and I am not trying to give you a hard time. :) ) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
- I think I would prefer to keep it as it currently stands, though of course if people continue to confuse me with Jakob, I could change it further. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 20:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- Hmmmmm, fine print, eh? I guess it is a step in the right direction. Wikipedia is absolutely overwhelming for newcomers, so that is just one more thing for them to deal with. I like to make things as clear as possible for them, and am willing to sacrifice my own personal preferences in order to do that. Would you consider "Jakec (talk)"? (If you do not want to, that is okay. It is not a huge issue and I am not trying to give you a hard time. :) ) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)